This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Editor Mark Goodacre Editorial Board John M.G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Karhleet~ E. Corley, R. Alan CuiJl
THE POST-MORTEM VINDICATION OF JESUS IN TilE SAYINGS GOSPEL Q
DANIEL A. SMITH
·" t&tclark
Copyright 0 Danid A. Smith, 2006 Published by T&T Clark lnternatiooal A Contitutun1 nnprint Tbe ToW
All rights reserved. No port of this publication may be <<produced or trans:mitted in any form or by any mean$, t leCU'Onic or mec:hanica.l, including photocopying, recording or any informacion storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publi,hers. Dani
Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production Limited
CoNTENTS Preface
VII
Abbreviations
ix
Introduction
1
Chapter 1 The Dtath and ResurrtCtion of jesus in Q? Q and the Death of Jesus Q and the Resurrection of Jesus Chap~r
5
5 21
2
Q 13.34-35, The Jerusalem Lamenr: Survey of Research Q 13.34-35 with 11.49-51 as Sayings of Wisdom Q 13.35b as a Condit ional Prophecy Q 13.34 ~35, the Deuterooomistic Tradition, and rhe Wisdom Myth Q 13.34-35 and tbe Rejection of Jesus Q l3.35b: the Assumprion of Jesus? Q 13.34-35 and tbe Sequence of Q, Again Implications Chapter 3 Assumption in Antiquity
31 33 36 38 40 42
45 46
49
Assumption in Craeco-Roman Literature
53
Assumption in jewish Literature
66
Assumption in Early Christian Literature Implications
86 92
Chapter 4 The Death and Assumption of jesus in Q 13.34-35 The Reconwuction of t he Saying The Rejection of Jesus and the Abandonment of Jerusalem lllyw u~lv: 'I tell you •. .' The Assumption of jesus: Posr-Monem Vindication, Exaltation, and Parousiio On the Origin and Development of Q 13.34-35 Exa.rsus: Th• AISutnption of Jesus and Body-Soul Dualism in Q
94 94 100 103
108 119 121
vi
Contents
ChapterS The Significance of Assumptioo in Q 13.3~·35 for Other Q Materials 123 Absence, Invisibility, and Return io Q 123 130 A Clu:iStologic•l Basis for Corporate Vindication in Q Q 11.29·30: The Sign of Jonah I ~3 Implications 149 Chapter 6 The Assumption of jesus in Q and Early Christianity Exaltation Without Resurrection? An Assumption of jesus from the Cross? Mark's 'Empty Tomb' Narrative {Mk 16.1·8) Implications
!51 IS I 155 ! 59 166
Conclusion Resurrection and/or Assumption - How Different is Q?
168
Bibliography Index of References Index. of Modern Authors
I 73 193 203
PREFACE
Many people bave contributed to this work at \'arious stages,. and I wish ro expre<s my t hanks to them. I am especially grateful to John Kloppenborg, whom I have been privileged over man)' years co counr as teac.her, men~ tor., and colleague. I have benefited greatl)· from his careful oversight, sage advice. and cominuing encouragement, and this book is much improved thanks (0 dialogue with him. l would also like to t-hank others who havt read earlier drafts of this book., particularly Dale Allison, Terry Donaldson,
Leif Vaage,. and Michael Steinhauser. Their careful re:Jding of my work a_nd insightful suggestions for its improvement a re m uch appreciated. Michael Kolarcik and Andrew lincoln also were hdp£ul, offering their perSJ*ctivts on panicular questions. Jn addition, numero us individuals have bctn gracious with t heir time and with their own research, pro viding me with invaluable advice and with either difficult to find or unpublished materials' Alan Kir k, John Kloppenborg, Andy Reirne~ james M. Robinson. Risto Uro, joseph Verheyden, Dieter Zeller, and the members of the International Q Projecr. Thanks are a lso due co Hannu Aaho, who prepare.d an English translation or a Finnish essay by Risto Uro. I am a lso graceful to Huron University College, and in particular the Revd Dr John Chapman, Dean of Theology, for support gi,·en to my work. Finally and aOOve all, for her encouragement a nd support, I thank my wife Patricia, to whom, with our two children Matthew and james, this work i$ dedicated with love.
Feast of the Ascension, 2.5 May 2006
W ndon, Ontario, Clnoda
AIIBREVIATIONS
AB
ABD ACJU
AfT An8ib ANET
Anchor Bible D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible DictioMry (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1992)
Arbc:iten zur Geschicbte des al'ltiken j~.Jdtntv.rnl und des Urchristc:ntums AIIUt'kan Journal of Theology Analeclll biblica J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Te>:tJ Relating ro the Old Testanunt (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 3rd edn, 1969)
ANF
Anti ~Nicene
ANRW
H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufsmg und Niedergang der romischen Welt: GtS
ARW ATANT
Fathers
Araft Abhandlungon zur Th
Neuen Testaments BOAC
W. Baue<, F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W. Gingrich, A Greek- English Lexicon of the New Testament tJnd Otbf!T Early Christian Literaturt (Cbkago: University of Chicago Press, 3rd edn, 2000)
Biblica Biblical Resurch BuUetin of the jolm Rylands Umversity Library of Manchester
BZ
Bib/ische Zeiuchri{t Beihefte zur ZNW
BZNW
CChr
Catholic Biblical Quarterly Corpus Chris-rianorum
CJG
Corpus inscriptionum graecarum
CBQ
X
Con8NT
ETL Fz8
HNT HTKNT
HTR ICC
IC IQP
JBL ]JS ]S)
A blneviatio,. Coniecr:.tnea biblica, New Testament Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses I'Or$<:hung •ur Bibel Handbuch zum Neuen Tesramenc Herders thcologlscher Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Harvard Theological Review lnternalional Critical Commentary lnscriptiones graecae lnternarionaJ Q Proiecr, directed by J.M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann and j .S. Kloppc:nborg ]ouf11al of Biblical Literature journal of]ewisl1 Studies journal (or the Study of judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period
jSNT
jSNTSup
joumal for the Study of the New Testament journal for the Study o{ the New Testament,
Supplement Serie-s )SP JSPSup )TS LCL
lD
li<S
LSJ
LXX MT NovT NovTSup NRSV NTAbh NTl
NTS NTIS OTP PAA)R PG PVTG
journal {or the Study of the Pseudepigrapha Journal (or the Study of the Pseudepigrapha, Supplement Series ]oumal of Theological Studies Loeb Classical Lib(ary
Lectio divina l-ukan Sondergut, or special material H.G. Liddell, R. Score and H.S. jones, Greckl'.ng/i,h Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th edn, 1968) Septuagint Masoretic Text Nouum Testamentum
Novum Testamentum, Supplements New Revised Standard Version Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen New Testament Library New Te>tament Studie• New Testament Tools and Srudtes J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1983} Proeetdings of the American Aeademy of Jewish RtseJJrch J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus complcta .. . Series graeca {166 vols._. Paris: PctitMontrouge, 1857-83) Pseudepigrapha Veter1s Testamemi graece
Abbreviatio,.
RB
R•v"" bibliquo
R•l RSR SANT
Religion Redu:rdJu de scinsce rtllgi•uu Stddit.o zum Altt-D und Neuen Testament Souroes bibliques SBL S.ptuaginr and Cogna« Srudies SBL Settrinar Papns Srucrg;~tter Bibtlsrudien Srudic. in Biblieal Theology Sources chrftiennes Studies in Judaism in Lare An1iquir~ Sociery for New Tesramenr Srudies Monograph
SB SBLSCS SBLSP
SBS SBT
sc
SJLA
SNTSMS SUNT SVTP
THKNT
Series Studien 2.ur Umweh des Ncuen Tatamems Srudia in Veteris Testamenti pscudcpigrapha Theologiscber HandkommentGr zum Neuen Testament
varia lc:crio, or variant reading Word Biblical Commcnrary Wit.5enschahJiche Monograph1en zum Alten und Neuen Tenamr:nt Wi$$c:nKh"ftlichc Untersuchungen zum Neucn Testament
Zeituhri{l fiir Ji• neutmnnrtmtllcht WiJsemcha(t
ZRGC ZTK
Zeruchri{l fur Relieio••· unJ Geistugeschid"• Zeitschri{l fur Tbeologi• und Kirch• AliBREVIATIONS OF ANOENT SOURCES
I CILm.
I Ett. !Qap G
1 En. 2 En. (A} 2 En. I)) J En. 2 Bar. • Mau. 4 F.tra
Anabasis Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John Mishnah, Berakhot Cassius Dio, Roman History
Cicero, Resp.
Chariton, Cbaereas and Callirboe Cicero, De republica
Clem. Alex., Strom. Copt. Apoe. Elij. Der. Er. z,.r. Dese. Chr. ad In(. D
Clemen< o£ Alexandria, Strcmuzta Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah Derek Eretz Zuta Descent of Christ into Hell DeHteronomy Rabbah Didascalia Apostolorum
Dieg.
Diegesis
Oiogenes lacnius
Diogenes Laertius, Lives o{ Famc>us Philo.sophers Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitatts
Diod. Sie., Bibl. bist. Dion. Hal., Ant. rom.
Ennius, Ann. Gen. Rab. Ck. Apoc. Eua
Cos. P
romanat Ennius, Annal~
Genesis Rabbab Greek Apocalypse of Ezra Gospel of Peter Hecmas, Similitude
lranaeus, Haer. Josephus, Ant. Jub.
Htonas, Vision Herod ian, History of the Roman Empire Herodorus, Histories History of Joseph Homer, Iliad Homer, Odyssey Iranaeus, Adversus haereses josephu~, Antiquities of the jews jubilees
Pss. Sol. Q ues. 8tJTth. Servius, Aen. T. Abr. T. Abr. (A) T. Abr. (8) T. Ash. T.}ob T. Mos. Tg. Neof. Tg. Ps.·}. )\ Sanh.
xili
Ovid, Metamorphosu Pausanias, Des,ription of Greece Philo, De Abrahamo Philo. De mutatione nominu.m Philo, Quaestiones in Genesin Philo, De sacri(iciis Abe/is et Caini Philo, De vita Mosis Philostratus, Ufe of Apollonius of Tyana Pirke Rabbi Eli<:er [Plutarch,] Consolatio ad Apollonium Plumrcb, Numa Plutarch, Romulus Plutarch-. Thesms Prorevange/ium of James Psalms of Solomon Questions of Bartholomew S.rvius, Commentary on the Aennd of Virgil Testament of Abraham Tutament of Abraham, recension A Tsstomtmt of AbrtJham, recension B Testament of Asher Testament of Job Testament of Moses Targum Neofiti Targum Pse>~do·Jonatban jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin ttactote
INTRODUCilON
For the past hundred or more years, one of the central issues in the discus· sion of the place of the Sayings Gospel Q in early Christianity has been irs relationship ro those-circles for which the death and resurrection of jesus were of foundational kc:rygmatic significance. Some scholarS have main~ tained that Q presumes a kerygmatic interpretation of jesus' death and a belief in his resurrcction. Such an approach may enable Q ro be fixed in relation to other earl)' Christian groups about which mort is known directly, but it also requires some: explanation of Q's general .silence on these matr:e.rs. ln contrast, others have argued that Q originated in a communicy which was interested in jesus 110t as a dying and rising savioux, but rarhc:.r as a sagC" whose sayings had ongoing importance. This approach explains why Q is silent about Jesus' death and r~urrection, bur it has no way tO explain the grounds on which those who composed Q expected his future presence as the 'Coming One' or the 'Son of man'. Given the unlikelihood that the Q group could have been ignorant o f jesus' death by crucifixion in jerusa]em, certain Q tex.ts must be read with Jesus• death in v-iew, even though none of them explicitly refers tO it {Q 14.27, for instance). 1 Q's pOlemic against 'this generation' indicates chat t he rejection of jesus was given a 'deuteronomistic' interpretation. Acc:ording w the deureronomistic view of histocy, calamitie$ that befell Israel resulted from Israel's reiec:tion, mistreatment, and {sometimes) murder of prophet-s sent by Cod.' A ela.. ic example is found in 2 Cbron. 24.18-25: Zechariah the priest utters an oracle against the people* who conspire against him and stone him in tbe temple; joash is defeated by t he outnumbered Aramites {vv. 23-24), and this is interpreted as the direcr result of the people abandoning Cod and Cod abandoning them (vv. 20, 24). Thu• in Q the rejection (and face) of john, jesus, and indeed the Q people arc seen in connec-tion with chis pattern of behaviour, with the result that judgmem is announced on 'rhis generation' (see, for instance, Q 7.31·35; 11.49·51). For Q, Jesus is (implicitly) t he paradigmatic instance of the characteristic mistreatment and 1. According 10 convention, Q texts J.tc referenced here-jn :.ccording to l..uk.ao <:hapter ~l\d vct.Je. Thus. Q 1•4.27 indK:ate:s the JOW'« of Mt. 10.38 and Lk. 11.27. 2. An imponant srudy is thar of O.H. Steck, l~ratJ und d4s gewalwme Cnchia.
tkr Prophrtnt: Untn#ldtu.Hftn tid Obn-lit{mmg des tkuU:rQn.omiubnt Geubichlbiltks im Alu" TeJtament, Spiitjudnltum urul Urdlrisf.vstum (WMAN'T; 2.3; Neukirchc:n--Vluyn: NC'ukirchener Vc:rtag, 1967).
2
Post·Mcxtem Vindi
murder of prophets by Israel, so that if Q depic:ts jesus a$ a rejected and murdered prophet or emissary, but does not show evidence of a belief in his resurrection, then the question arises of his post-mortem vindication. Many of these issues converge in Q's Jerusale.m Lament logion {Q 13.3435). The main hypothesis of this study is that the characteristic language and asooc:iations of •assumption' - the bodiJy removal of a human being from eanh tO heaven ar (or as) the end of their life- are present in this saying. For Q J3.35b predicts tbe 'disappearance' of jesus: 'You will not see me unril [the time comes when) you say, •Blessed is the Coming One in the name of the Lord ... •3 The 'not seeing' language is closely similar to that used in Hellenistic assumption stories in both rhe Greek and Jewish traditions. This •not seeing' is only temporary, however: Jesus will be seen again, and will be met with an acclamation. Thls exemplifies the typical jewish correhirion between assumption and eschatological function. A reading of Q 13.34-35 along these: lines was first proposed in 1985 by Dieter Zeller,' and the idea has subsrquently been raken up by a few othe.rs., but this srudy fully investigates the implica~ tions for tbe rheology of Q of a reference to assumption in this saying. Assumption, however, was usually conslde.red a bodily removal of a person from earth tO heaven while still alive. Could assumption have been considec~d a means of vindication for the post· mortem jesus? There is evidence: &om both Graeco-Roman and jewish sources that as.sumption language could be applied to someone who had died. Two significant such instances in the jewish tradition a re the 'righteous one' in Wisdom 2-S and the children of job in the 1ost$itionally to material about an unseen and suddenly visible Son of mJn, can be re-evaluated in light of the correlation between assumption and parousia in Q 13.34-35. The basis of corporate vindication i.n Q em also be reconsidered, particularly given significant parallels between the non-..arrhly jesus of Q and heavenly repre· sentative figures in Second Temple jewish literature. In addition, the.~sign of Jonah' saying (Q 11.29-30) could possibly be illuminated if Q 13.3.5 depictS jesus as someone rescued from dearh. J. tkrdn, diKWsiom of the roconsuu«ion of Q begin from J.M. Robinson. P. Hoffmann. and J.S. Kloppenborg (td~ ). Tlu Critia~l E.diJHm of Q~ A SJ"OPsi.s int:ludiltg tin Gos~l~ of Matthew •rul LN.J:•, ~rk and Thomas with £,.gll$h, Gmna" o-nd french Trt:UUiatkms of Q tmd 1'/,omas (Htrmencia Supplemenu, 1; Mjnneapolis: Forueu; Leuver.1: Peet~r$. 2000). English tunslationll are normally uken ftom Robinson et at.. CriticAl Edition of Q, though $0mttimts witb mi.nor modifications. <4. D. ZeiJet, 'EnuikJcuog zur Ankunft :~Is Mtru~Chtruohn (U n. J.4f.; 11, 29£.)". iD A C..... d. rb.mgift, t,.,u, Sy.o<>pt;,p.., .r lu t.<Us (Fesuebrik ). Dupoo.q tD. 123; Pari$: Q :r.f. 1985), pp. 51~30.
'"'It'
/ntToduction
3
In order ro offer some corroboration of the hypothesis that Q uses a$Sumption (not resurrection) to express convictions about JC$us• vindication and return, other texts from ear1y Christianity suggeuive of a similar view are also investigated. The most significant text is Mark·s cEmpty Tomb' sroty (Mk 16.1-8), wbich describes the absence of Jesus' body from the romb but narrates no 11ppearan~s of me risen one. For the author of Mark, of course, the empty romb signifies bodily murreetion (Mk 16.6), but the underlying source material seems to have described bodily disappearance:. This suggt$ts rhar assumption as a mode of the po$t•mortem vindkarion of jesus had c:urrency in a group other than the Q community. The implications of this hypothesis are signi6cant. It will be disputed how •assumption' should be regarded in relation to 'resurrection': were the rwo {competing?) alternatives, or even conc:epts distinct from one another?S Notwichsranding, if assumption language was used in some circles in this way, a fuller understanding of the terms in which jesus• post·mortem exis· renee was conceived becomes possible. Paul lays heavy emphasis on the appearances of the risen Christ (1 Coo 15.5-8), and some $Cholars- james Robinson, most prominently - have proposed that the earliest conceptu:· a1itations (or, be«er, visuaJi:tarions) o £ Jesus• po.st-mortem e,xjstence were luminous in nature.' Assumption language as used in Q, by contrast, even though on the surface a 'li,.rary' aMwer to the problem of Jesus' death and future, expresses a bodily disappearance, and according to Robinson such •bodily' understandings o f the resurrection were sec:ondary and apologetic in nature. Exactly how and when such a belief originated must remain unclear, as will be seen below. But the presence of •assumption• in Q - a •bodily' understanding of jesus' post-mortem existence - at least pushes the evidence for such a view funher back into the Synop-tic tradition than Robin$on suppo$Cd.1 It also introduces into Robinson's reconstruction another concepcualizalion altogether, and one that should not be simply equated with 'resurrection' or 'exaltation\ The present srudy holds that the Two-Document Hypothesis (Mark and Q) offers the best account of tbe relationsbips among the Synoptic gospels. According ro this view, Q was a documentary sayings collection use-d inde· pendtndy by rhe authors of Matthew and luke. • Q repre$ents the rextu.:al 5. S« L W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Drvotionto Jesus in Earliest ChristidniJy iGnn d R~pids: E!crdmans, 2003), pp. 2 33-39. 6. j.M. Robi'O$On. 'jt$U$- From Ea.srer to Valeotin~ (or to the ApOstles' Creed}', /BL 101 (1982), pp. S-J7, esp. pp. 7-17. 7. '"I'h.us the ~pologetic intereot evident in (the empty tomb J(c>ries otl each of the C4t~-«>nic.aJ $(1$~1s reflects a KCOndary stage io tbc transmission of r<surr«:tioo app«r· anc:es., a defense ag.~inst a tmislint«pr«ation of a more origioaJ .st:age• (Robinson, 'jesus -.from Easter•, p. 12l. 8. See C.M. Tu~ke«, Q and th, History of Ettrly Christianity: Studi#'S Off Q !Peabody, Mk Hendrickson, 1996), pp. 1- 39; j.S. I(Jopp
Post-Mortem Vindication of J.sus in the Sayings Gospel Q
4
evidence for the theological activiry of a community who~ rtlationship to othe.c groups within early Christianity cannot be taken for granted, and at least in a limited se-nse should be undtrstood as a •gospel' in itS own tight.' 1·ht- present work bears out this view of Q as •che Sayings Gospel', Along such lines h can also be said that Q has a 'christology', that is, a set of theological concepts and symbols related to the sigaHicance of jesus, even though the document does not contain the term 'Christ' or 'Messiah' . 10 Finally, although recent studies of the compositional history of Q have much to commend them, u the present studf deals with Q in irs final form, that is, as far as it can be reconstructed from Mauhew and Luke. The benefit of chis approach consists in its affirmation that the 6n-t~l form o f Q is the result of incemiona) redactional work; this a1lows crucial texts to stand in relationship to rhe whole document, so that even if materials suc-h as Q 13.3-4---35 came into the document at a later stage in irs compositional his tory, their influence in providing new contexts and even new interpretations for compositionally older materials may be fully a ppreciated." 4
9.
J.S. Klo-ppenborg, , ..F.an1!t
F:~.ith"
:1.nd the Sayings Gospel Q', in R. Cameron
(ed.}, The ApocrypbtJJ jt:Sus t~nd Christian O,igins (Stmeia, 49; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990),
pp. 11-99 (71); A.O. Jawbwn, TW Fint G()lj>el: An lntrOthu:tion to Q (Found.a tiom :1.nd F:~.ceu; Sonoma~ CA: Polebridge, 1992), pp. 19-32; F. Neiryock, 'Q: From Source fo Go.pel', £TL 71 11995), pp. 421- 30. 10. for a concise summary of Q'i c;h.ristology, ~ H.T. Fledderma.nn. Q: A Ruonssruaion an4 Commentary (Biblical Tools and Studies, 1; J..euyc:n: Pec:te-~ 2005), pp. 129-43: 'The Son o-f Man $ymbol do-minates Q's chri$1olo-gy. Q folds other aspttU oi chtittology into the c:omprf'hensive Son of Man symbol' (p. 143}. 11. For example. J .S. Klo-p_penbo-rg, Tbt Formalicm of Q: Tr4fut(Wies in AndenJ w;~ Colleaion$ ( Phibd~lphia: fortres-s, 1987); M. Sato, Q und l'r~bn.~: St~ Utr Gattwngs- un.J Traditionsg~kbiebk tkr Quelle Q (WUNT~ 2/29; TO.bingen: Mohr s;.b«k, 1988). 12. Tucke~ Q t~nd th~ History, pp. 75-82, advocates this approac.h..
Chapter l
THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS IN Q? Q and the Death of jesus Praccic:ally since Q 6nt came to be viewed as a document in its own right, rather than merely as a factor in the solution of the Synoptic Problem,' a major point of discussion has been t he relationship between Q and those early Christian texts which hold the death and resurrection o f jesus ro he of
primary kerygma.tic importancc.ln the a bsence of source-critical evidence for nartcltive passion material in Q. scholars sought to explain why such material was not present without questioning whether Q originated within kerygmatic
Chriscianiry. Some have argued that Q was originally intended tO $upplement other texts in which a kecygmatk view of the death and vindication of jesus was explicit, in which case it would be quite understandable that Q, as a sayings collection) would lack passion material. Others argued that the absence of passion material in Q resulted from the document's chronological, or geOgJaphical, or generic limits, although some continued to argue that Q did concain a pa-ssion narrative. With the rise of redaction criticism, however, there came the possibility that Q represemed a distinct sphere of early Christia:niry, one which under-stood the significance of jesus in non-kcrygmatic terms. Some scholars now hold that Q does not presume a salvific underscanding of jesus' death, or thar Q represents a Jcsus•movetnem entirely independent of kerygrnatic Christianity, a movement whose interest lay enrirdy in jesus• teachings and for which the death of Jesus was neirher theological axiom nor problem.1
1. Until the che cstly rwcntit-th erorury, Q wu treated 'more as a convenient postulate whkh facilitated cerr.ain t)Cplanarion!ll o( the Synoptic probleO'I: thAn at • roonu.meo~ attesting«> <11 p~nicular moment or moments in tbe h~tory of early Christianity', j .S. Kloppmbotg and LE. Vu~. '£arty Cluin ianity, Q aod jesu.t! ~ Sayings Gospd and Method in the Studr of Ch.risci.an Origins•, in KJop~nborg and Vaagt-(eels.), Early ChriJtitJnity, Q and }#sus {Semt-i2o, .SS; Atlam:a.: Scholars, J 991 ~. pp. J-lof. (3). l. For .a rccmc and tborough survey see Kloppmborg, &wwJ.i!Jg _Q, pp. 3$3 ..19.
Post-Mortem Vindie<Jtion of }ltlus in the Sayings GosptJ Q
6
1. Q and the Passion Kerygma The ea.rliest discuss-ions of the contents of Q either allowed that the document contained no passion narrative, or sought some reason why, if it had contained p3$$ion material, it had left so linJe trace in d\e passion narratives of Matthew and Luke. From either perspective, the cc.ntral issue was the distin<:tiven~:Ss of Q -whether or nor it was a 'gospel'. To give an early exam pte., Bernhard Wei€ thought Q was not intended to have, nor needed tO have, an account of the passion: such 'could not possibly be given without a continuous histocical narrative, such as our source neither offered nor was intended to offer·' .' There would be no point in the 'oldest source' (as Wei.B called Q) giving the events of Jesus• trial and death, since those facts were 'universally known'. The oldest source fixed the recollections of rhe primitive aposdes in a written form, and was 'practically inrended for purposes of instruction and edification' .• Thus WeiB saw Q as originating in the primitive Christian community and having a supplemental place alongside thefacts of jesus? passion. As will be seen below, this was to become a commoo e w:pla· nation for Q's lade of passioo material. For such early scholar>, Q's lack of pasoion material meant that it could noc be considered a 1gospel', by which was- meant - in clear deference co the shape of the canonical gospels- a biographical n-arrative with an_emphuis on Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection. Along such lines, Adolf JU~cher concluded ch.ar Q was nOt a •complete Gospel like that of Mark•, since 'there appears no trace of it in the stories of the Passion and Resurrection'. Ruled out as a: gospel~ then, Q was a sayings collection ~composed without any exercise of conscious art', except that the sayings had bten joined at rimes on the basis of internal connections.s Similarly, F.C. Burkitt believ~ asking whether Q contained passion material was •·practically equivalent to asking whether Q was a '"('.ospel", ... or a mere collection of sayings'.' Unlike Jiilicher, however, Burkin argued that Q did contain p-assion material. He argued that afte.r the Last Supper, Luke no longer uses Mark as the basis of his narrative, and asked 'whether this narrative of the Passion may not have been derived from the same source as most of Luke's nonMarc:an mate-rial, i.e. from Q its-elf'.' Burkitt provided a.s evidence mOiterial in Luke 22, some of which is in 'minimal Q', but some of which is unique tO luke or derived from Mark.' George Castor noted that t he unique Lukan 3.
b. Wei£, A A.W"-Wal of ltstTOduaion to the Ntw Tutament (tram. A.j.K. Da~
2 vo[s.; Ntw York: funk & Wagoalls, 1887-89), p. 2.238. 4. W~£. Matntal, p. 2.239.
S. A. jUJidttr. An Introduction to th1 Nf!W Teltlll'ttf'-nl (ttilm. J.P. Ward; London: Sm;th 8< £lei
7 material Burkitt appealed tO 'is much more closely related to the narratives
peculiar to Luke that have preceded than tO the common material of Q'.' Furthermore, as Wilhelm Bussmann showed, the
Q material thar remains is
not directly related to the death or resurrection of jesus, but is only found in a passion context due to Luke's editorial placemeot. 1D A few others used the SO
that Q contained no passion narrarive,11 although tht-ee was considerable disagreement as to the implications of this. Some found its absence in Q to be reason for doubting the exlstenct: o f Q as a document, 13 and today at least N.T. Wright remains reluctant to rule out the possibility of a Q passion narrative. 14 The discussion has. therefore focused on some central issues.. First, why did Q contain no passion material? Solutions have been sought. generaUy speak ing, either in the nature or purpose of Q or in the beliefs of the commuoity responsible fo r Q. Closely related is a second issue, whether or not Q shows evidence of a knowledge of or interest in jesus' death at all. According to some scholars, Q texts that describe suffering or persecution associated with disciple$bip or with the rejection of God's envoys imp1)' a
9. G.D. Castor, J<.Litthew's Sgyings of}1sus: The Non·Alare#lt Common SOtttu of Mattbftv tJ1'UJ LMitt fChicagQ: Unh·m:irr of Os_icagQ Pres&, 1918).• p. 15.9. Other aH.:ropts to argue for a Q pusion namttivt ~}so focuW aaenrjo(l on l.uk:an Sondergut. See, for Uut.ance, J.V. Ba.ttlet, "The Sources of St. Luke's Gospel\ in W. Sanday {«<.J, Studws in Uu~
S)'lfOptie Ptoblmr by Memlw-s o{th~ Uniwr$ity of Oxfwd tOx(ocd: Clarendon, 1.911}, pp. 114-63 (ll2}; W.£. Bundy, )~.ills and th~ First Tbru Go$f1ds (Dmbridgt, MA: Harvard Univertity Prm., 19$5), p. 48\. 10. W. Buss.mann, Synoptische St.uaim: H#{t2, Zru Retknqudlt (Halle: Wai$cnh~u$,
1929J, pp. 116-17. Stt .t.lso Kloppe:nborg, Fonnotion, pp. 85-86. 11. E. Hinch, Dit Frilhgtsdtich~ des £vang~liums: Heft 2, Die Vorlagen dt:1 Lukiu ,.'l(/ du Sotulerpl Ms M~Jttbiius (lubingen: Mohr Sicbock, 1941 1~ pp. 245--48; s.tt aJso E. Franklin, 'A P2Uion Namti'e for Q?•, in C. -Rowlind and C. Fktehc-.r·Lcwis (eds-.}, Ul'fd4rttflndin& StNdy;ng dlld ReQrg.
JiomuJtiCHI, p. 86. 12. B. H. Stteetcr. 'The Original Extent of Q', in SwdWs in the Synoptic Probltm, pp. 184-208 {203); also Srreerer. The Ft.Hir Gospds: A Study of Origins (London: MacmliJan, 1924J, p. 292; V.H. Stanton, T1H GosJH;ls 4S Hisuwi<41 Docu~nu: Vol. 1, Th~ Synopti( Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge Unive-n.iry Ptell$, 19091, p. 105. 13. See W.L. Knox, ~ Sottrus of th~ Synoptic Cosptls: Vol. 2 , St. LuJte and St. M#tthftv {Cambricise: Cambridge Uni~ei'Jity Ptei$, 19$1), pp. 3...S. PcOpQnentll of source theories othet than the Two D«~o~ment HypOthesi$ have shared a similar vlew: A.M. Farrer.. •On 0 i$pCI)Jin&: with Q', in D.E. Nintbam (cd.,, S/ll.dks in the GoSf/'6/s (In .Memori.am R..H. J..lihtfoo<; Oxford, RuH Blackwell, 11SS), pp. SS-88; WJL Fume~ Th< Gotplis: Fo~ 19.9lJ, p. H I.
8
Po.st·Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayir•gs Gospel Q
knowledge of how jesus died. Others emphasize t-hat Q nowhere, mentions Jesus' persecution o r death specifically and conclude that Q was formulated by a community of Jesus• followers whc»c-interests lay exclusively in jesus·' sayings. Concerning the formet lssu~ Adolf von Harnac.k otrgued that since 'the Passion and aU references to the Passion are absent from Q', it 'was not a
gospel at all in the sen~ chat the SynoptiC$ are'. This lack of passion material meant that Q was a document without any historical climax or. continuity, and one wh<»e 'hori>.on' W>Os 'absohJtcly bounded by Galilee', and which bad no 'clearly discernible bias, whether apologetic, didactic, e<:-clcsiastical. nacionaJ. or anti-nationaf'.tS A few others. includingj.C. Hawkins, thoughr the contents of Q were limited co sayings deriving from the minlsuy in Galilc~. 14 A related idea held by more recent scholars .is that Q represents the licerary result of a relatively conservative tradition which kept post-Easter themes distinct from the authcmi<.: voice of]esus (so, for example, think Pctr PokornY and others). 17 Another approach, mentioned above, was to consider chat Q presupposes exactly what it fails to mention, since irs fu nction was co supplement ocher traditions or texts in use. TypicaJiy, scholars drew conclusions from the contents o r shape of Q conc::~,ming th~ function the document had within the early Christian community; but Q was always understood as supplementing che proclamation of Jesus• salvific death and resurrection, which such scholars presumed to h~.wc fundamcnrol (j.c., foundational) signi6c~nce for all early Christian communities. 11 According tO B.H. Strtc:ter~ for example~ Q contains no pa,ssion material since 'at that period and in that non-literary socitt)' of Palestinian peasantS only that was •uritten down which one would ~likely w forget', and no one was likely to forget the deoch and resurrcx:cion of jesus~ which •Q pres-upposes as a matter of common knowledge'. Thus
Q was written soon aher jesus' death, in order (to supplement the living tradition of a generation which had known Christ•.n Julius Wellhausen. IS. A. Hamadc, The Sayi,.g.s of jesus: The &Wftd Souru of St. ,\1.4t.thew and Sl. LMke (traos.. J.R. Wilkinson; New York: Putn:tm; l..ondon: Willi~tn$ & Norgare, 19081, pp. 1~71.
16. j.C. tlawkins., 'ProNbiJities as to che So·CaUed Doubl~ Tradition of Sc. Matthc:w and St. luke'. in Sandsy (~d. ), StNdi~s in the Synoptic Ptoblmt, pp. 9$- 138 (129); ~e a!w W.M. Ramsay, We tbe Plrysi.cion, mul Oth.r Studi4s iJ1 th~ History of Religi(m {London: Hodclec. 1908 ~ pp. 84--89. For :a similar vM!w, see E.P. M~3dors-~}tsus rh~ M~ssianic Hn-old ofS•/.,.ti<m (WUNT, 2172; Tut>;ng•m Molu Sieb
Chmtok>gy (Edinbutgh, T&T Clark, 1995), pp. 73-117 {76). 18. See the di:K.uu,ion Ut Kfop1>tnborg, Fotmdtion, pp. 14-22. 19. !..H. St~t, ·~Lite-rary E.voJutioo of the Gospels\ in Sanday (ed,), Stud~;, UN SyrwpJic Problnn. pp. 209-27 (215; emphasis ori&iru.lh also Strttttr, Four Cosp.els, p. 292. ~he l)()l(d that Q\ l\Otcriology is~ on the pa.rou;r.i.a, oot the passion. Stt also Kloppmborg. FOfflf4titm, p. 22..
The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in Q?
9
however, argued that Q··s purpose was tO supplement materials like Mark, not ora] traditions or common knowledge of the death and resurteclion ol jesus. fundamental to Wc:Uhauscn"s position was his view that Q was dependenc on Mark, so th.at the former presuppostd the narrative material of the latter, including the passion matcriaJ.lO Besides Streeter and Wellhausen, other scholars who rook this view include Martin Dibclius and T.W. ~1anson.·21 In Dibelius's view, the cthicaJ crisis c.aused by the delay ol che Parousia resulted in t he compilation of Q, a paraenetie (or balakbic) supplement to the basic kerygma." Q lacks passion material bec.a use it was intended as such a s upplement; moreover, its non· nanarivc: conr.enc.s excluded passion material necessarily.1l Manson thoughr that the most likel)• motive for the compilation of Q was 'the pas-tora l care: of the churches', groups comprised of 'people who are already Christians and know t he story of the Cross by heart•.l-4 Though Manson took tt supplcmcnrnry view of Q, he also sensed that Q was at odds with other e.arly Christian writings ft,)r which the passion kerygma wa~; central. He t hought two streams of tradition evencually came together in Manhew and Luke: one which held the passion and resurre<;tion o f Jesus to be central, and which was expressed biographically (Mark); and one for which the sayings of an authoritative teacher were fundamental (Q}.l$ In rhe view of Heinz E. TOdt, Manson presents a problematic description of Q 'because from t his point of view it cannot clearly be discerned how Q and the passion kerygma are related to each other•.u 1"his view of Q as a supplementary sayings coUection that presupposed the basic elements of kerygmatic Chrisd.aniry would be, at lea.sE until the work of TOdt," the standard reason given for Q's lack o f passion material. TOdt showed that the Q material both formally and conceptually was oriented not tO the paS$iOn kerygma, as an ethical o r paraenetic suppJc::ment, but to the ongoing proclamation of che kingdom announced by jesus. 21 Thus Q originated in a •sphert-' of t-arly Christianity whose central proclamation was not jesus• death and rcsunecrion, but hJs teachings themselves: 20. J. Vlell.luw;en, EinieUwng in die erllm Jrei E~~a~tgel.ien (Bettin: Georg Reimer:, 2nd (dn, 191 1). pp. 159-60; cited in Kloppenl:>org. FOt7nllt~, p. H . 21. H.£. TOO~ The Son ofM4n in the S)'"optl'c Tradition (trans. O.M. Sa non; NTI..; London: SCM Press, 1965), pp. 238-46• see alro Kloppenb()rg, 'Euttr Faith', pp. 71- n. 22. M . Dibelius, from Tradition to G
G. Mohn, I~S~; 2nd edn, 1~63). 28. TOdt,So• of M-, p.l47.
10
Post-Morrem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Ther~ are rwo spheres of tndjrion, din in.guished both by rheir conoeprsa.nd by their
history. The c-catre of the one spbae is the passion kerygma; the c:cntrc of the othc7 i.s tbe inrent;on to take up again tbt: tc:ach.ing of what jes:ut lud u ughL The Q m.aterial bdoftg$ to the- st>eond sphere.~
The rwo spheres differ not only in rhe conrem of proclamation, but more fundamentally in christology. The first sphere's christology was, obviously,
oriented to the pass-ion and resurrection, but Q's is a Son of rnan cbristology in which jesus' pre-Easter authority (and of course his own proclamation) is validated through the post-Easter identification of Jesus and the Son of man.)() This is what permitted the Q community to take up jesus' proclamation a.s their own. However, for TOdt at least the two spheres appear to orbit the .same sun {so ro speak), for in his view the passion and resurrection must have had foundational significance for Q as well: 'Without recognizing this foundation [viz., the events o f the passion and resurrection) a community would not have been established at .all. 1l 1 In fact, precisely because it is the resu"eaion that confirms Jesus as the coming Son of man and establishes the authority of his sayings, 'as understood by thjs community, the passion and resurrection were not what had to be preached but what had enabled them co preach'.12 The work of TOOt must be considered a gcound~brea.king achievemem for the study of Q, for it established that the document - not to mention the community and theology it represents - is of independent intereit for the study of Christian origins." Nevertheless, in Toot's work Q remains within the orbit of kerygmatic Chrisdanit)·.3 ' Along similar lines, Ernst Kasemann" and Odil H. Steck" viewed Q as originating in a specifically mission.oQriented Sit% im Leben within a community which knew and presumed the passion and resurrection tradi· tions. 1' Steck saw Q's formally diverse contents as all oriented towards mission: instruction and exhortation for tht missionar1es, paraenesis for
29. 30. 3l. 32.
TOOt. Son of Man, p. 268. TO• o{ Mdt, So11 ofMan, p. 2SOoi OI ~ simitar view) &cc U. Wilc:ken.s, 'jc:&ustiberlieferung
und C b.rinuskerygm.a: rw~i Wtgt: urchri.:stlicher Obt:.tt~ferungsgc:schichte', Th~olofio Viatorum 10 (196S-66t, pp. 3 10.39; ET 'The Tradition-Hist ory of the Resurr4!Crion of jesus', in C.F.D. Moule (c:d.). Tin Sitnifiu nc# of the R~su"utiOif (Ot Faith ht j#SM$ ChriJt (SBT, 218; London: SCM, 1968). pp. Sl- 76 (72-73}. See Kloppe:nborg. •f.atur Faith', p.
13. See J<Joppenbo,._ 'E>01or F•ith', p. 71. 34. Sec the criticisms of jacobson, First Co~J, pp. 28-JO. 35. E. Kbemattn, •oo the Subja.'t of Primitive Chdstiw AfNXalyptic:', in New Tu""""'t ~k>ns o{Tod4y (tnns. WJ. Moorogue; NTl; London' SCM, 1969), pp. 108..J7 (119). 33.
36.
Steclc, /.1rad7 p. 288.
37.
Soc: Kloppenborg. ' Easter Faith', pp. 73-74.
Tht Dtatb 4nd Resu"tction of jesuJ in Ql
II
their converu, and woes aod threats for those wbo rejected the message." However, john Kloppenbo
2. "/"he Dtath of /tsuJ in Q The fac:t that Q nowhere c.xplicidy mentions jesus' death, muc;:h less includes anything related to the natt:Jtin passion traditions. raises the question of whether knowledge of Jesus' death can be properly be inferred from Q." Two d ifferent approaches have t-n attcmpred. The 6rsr cakes seriously Q sayings which could imply knowledge ol Jtsus' deo1h on the pan of their uaden11. The second approach is ro argue from Q's poltmical marerial, or iu ma1erial about pcncculion, h.u:k to a knowledge of Jesus' dealh. Both approat hca may be nrengtbcned if roupled with the • priori obscnation that i< is highly unliktly thar rhe framers of Q wtre unswarc 1hat Jesus had mer :a violent end. The view 1hat Q contains sayings which imply a knowledge of jesus' death, or which would have been read or heard with jesus' death in mind, has long been held out as an alternative to the view that Q eonrained a pa.ssion n11.rrative. Sometimes this approach bas been used ro reinforce an
Jl.
S
J9. Klopploo o(Q: f..l tht .,..,... o( ~·1 deltb and tftw-ftletion •Ions Pondi01: liocs', the c:ommwiliy owed 1t1 tte.ry vunm« to tbt ·~,.C"Ota chat bsd u.ken pla.ot - W minisa"y, denh aod rewmuion of )tius. foUowed b)' dw: Splr-it\ (OCII.jn, and vltalicy &mOQ& ics tDtmben'. <41. A po~itive tuUtt does noc imply eitbu a direct knowlcdcc oi the n.arrati.-c pauioo tradition nor • dirte~. Wluenc:e on Q of lwypa.tie app~ebtl co jaul' de1th. See, for Hoffm~n.n, Stwdms V4r1Moklt~ dcr Lot~qwlk tNTAbh, 8; Miitu.t~r: AKhcnd<>
ex.11mple, P. 369-74.
Post-Mort•m VindiC<Jtion o( jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
12
understanding of Q as having an origin within kerygmacic Christianity. 41 Bur mher authors have found isolated reminiscences of Jesus-' fate in Q without toJking them as dependent upon the passion narratives or kerygma. The view that the deuteronomistic perspective i.ncludes the re.jection and death of jesus would fall under rhis description, and has b<en argued by David Seeley a nd Arland Hulrgren. Seeley rhoughr Q con rains a 'handful of passages (6.22-23; 7.31-35; 11.4751; 13.34-35; 14.27) which rrear rhe subjecrs of persecurion and death in a way that could readily have b<en applied to Uesus'J demise', almough none of the passages mention jesus cxplicitly. 44 Seeley argued t hat the Cross Saying (Q 14.27} doe$ nor show any evidence o f the deuteronomistic perspective's influence. On the contrary, in Seeley's opinion, Q 14.27 'does match Cynic· Stoic views on the narure of a teacher•s death and its rtlatiOn$hip co di_s,iplcs' deaths'.'' Seeley tried ro establish me compositional priority of Q 14.27 o ver the other references rhat display the deureronomist.ic perspective~-. and suggested that the redactional addition Q 6.23c (the propher.' fares as analogous w the fate of Jesus> disciple-s} adapted 'the characteristically Greco-Roman mimetic patrern [e\·i·dent in 6.22ab, 23ab) ... lin order co] accommodate a more: jewish topic: prophets•}" Thus Q 6.23c serves as a 'bridge• berween the mimetic and deureronomisric interpretations .., Seeley tried tO sort all the deureronornisric references into a rrajecwry from Q J4.27 (which displays no deuteronomisric in8uence) ro Q 13.34-35 (which displays a .softening o f (he earlier and harsher pofem.ical perspective of Q 11.47-;1). While der;~ils of Sceley•s study- in particular the pOSSibility of rracing an incremental development in approaches to jesus· death within Q<4' - may be q uesrioned~ he made a number of significant coouibutions. F'ttsr, he noted mat Q 14.27 'deals specifically with Jesus and his followers' relation.hip to him·~ and that 'could hardly be cited without calling to mind jesus' death'. Seeley reasoned that although the Q people may seem w b< 'uninterested' in Je.sus' death, •if is difticu)[ to believe that £hey were unaware that he had 13. RH. Stead, 'Does: the OriginaJ Collection of Logia ( 4 Q'") Contajn Prediction of Our Lord's Rcsunc1:tioo?' Exposi"'r 812.2 11921). pp. 397-400. Along timilar llnes,
BU$$1))ann COn$idered it t~mhinkabk rhat Q could bct~y a knowledge of jesus' dtath (e.g.,
Q 14.27 aod Lk. 13.ll •.B I but bl!lve oo theological intcr~c in o.arrating if (BU$.Sn:!ann. Zur R~denq~/1,,
pp. J 16-17}. D. Scdey, ' aks.singJ \l_nd 6ouod.1.rits: lnrerptt:blions of J~us• Duth in Q', in Klopptnborg and Va~ (cds.), £orly ChristU'"ity, Q a~ }1$141, pp. 131-46 •131). See aiM) D. Seeky, 'jesu11• Dtath in Q', NTS 38 {1992), pp. 222-J.4. ,..,., 45.
Seeley, 'JC$us' Dc:ath'. p. 234; also 'Bie&&ings and Soundarie$', pp. 132-34.
~.
Seeley, •Biet$-ing,'l and Boundaries\ pp. U4-38. Sttl<')'o 'BJes.s:inp and Bwodaries•, p. 138. Scel<:y, '8lt"$$in:gll :and Bountbties•, pp. 138-.19. Xe Tucl<.rtt, Q and the Hlsr<Jry, 220 n.. 39; T\lclcen., 'On the Str:ari6catioo of Q: A R~poo9e', in Klopp<-nborg and Vaage ( eds.), &rly Cltri#ia"ity. Q aM ju.w$, pp. 21~22 -47. -48. 49".
(217-13).
The Death and ReS~mection of jesus in Qf
13
suffered crucifilCion'.-'0 Second, regardless of whether the mimetic view of
disciple-ship ls more primitive than the deuteronomistic unde.rsranding, See.ley showed rightly that in both models Jesus' death is explicitly linked with the possible deaths of his follow~r$. Within the polemical use of the deuteron· omistic perspe<:tivc in Q, rhe community faces the same threat of rejection a od death - whether actually or potentiaily11 - as jesus and the. prophets before him ac
deutcronomistic model appe.ars more strongly. A similar approach wa.s taken by Hultgren. The two main rexcs he refers to are the Cross Saying and the Jerusalem Lament (Q 13.34-35). Tbe theme of Q 14.27 - t.>lc.ing one's cross and following Jesus in order to be a disciple -(presupposes the. cross of Jesus and recalls cht carrying of Jesus· Ct0$S't either by Jes us or by Simon of Cyrene (Mk 15.21 par.}.'' Moreove~ the cross as- metaphor for the dangers associated with discipleship 'makes sense only within a co ntext where the cross js a symbol of giving oneself over sacri6dally, and therefore it most certainly echoes the passion•.sJ A reference to Simon is highly unlikely, and while the Cross Saying would have been read or heard in connection with jes us' death, a ·sacrifici~d' iru-erpretation seems co infer too much from chis as a reference to death by crucifix.ion. 1" H ultgren's discussion o f the Jerusalem Lamc::nt focuses o n it$ citation of Ps. 1 J8.26: .since there is no evidence for a messianic reading of t he psalm in early Judaism, •rhe first such usage musL have been in connection wirh the account of jesus• en tty into jerusalem, where it is unmfstakeably messianic'. Even though the verse i,s used in itS Qcontext as a prediction of the Parousia, H ultgren thinks cthe Q saying echoes the acclamation of the crowds' in Mk 11.9 etc.; moreovef, rhe association of Ps. 118.26 with the entry imo Jerusalem in both Mark and John ' speaks in favor of its place in the jerusalem entry traditi-o n from very early timcs'.'1 Thus, in Hultgren's view, Q knows of the passion tradition concerning j esus• entry into jerusalem. It be see-n below thar there are better grounds (han an allusion co the Entry into Jerusalem for seeing a rcfer
wm
.SO. Seelty, •jesus• (},uth'. p. 226 . .S l, Oo I be q~ion wbether the Q community cution, .st.: Tuckcu, Q aM th,. History, pp. 320-22. $2. Hultgren., NormaJi~ CbrinUmity, p. 33 . .S3. Hultgren, Norm4Jive ('.htistitmity, p. 33. S<. Kloppeobo<&. Eu.""'lng Q, pp. 36!1-70. SS. Hultgren, N01'1PU1tiw (.:.b,i.slilmiry, p. 3-4.
~s
actuaUy
facl~
\'lolenl perg:·
14
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
a vindicated and exalted post-morrem jes-us; however, Hultgren thinks that such a status can be granted tO jesus ·only on tb~ b~$isof his resurrettion'.56 ln partic-ular this -s tudy wiU rake issue with the final point; however, in general Hultgren ;~.nd S~ley were correct to argue that there are a number of texts in Q which betray a knowledge of jesus' death and which would have evoked suc:h a memory - even if Q•s d.irec.t knowledge of specific traditions that appear elsewhere in early Christian literature Qonot be demonsuarcd with certainty. The other way to handle the question of Q 's knowledge of the death of jesus is to observe that Q contains rhetorical o r pOlemical strategies which rt<pond to Jesus' death. A numbet of approaches have been taken by different scbolars,n bur one arises from the deuteronomistic perspe<:tive on rejection and suffering that Q espouses. Q 7.31· 35, 11.49·51, and 13.34-35 all deal with the theme of the rtjeetion of Wisdom's emissaries and, rakeo rogerher, these texts suggest a relationship between rhe rejection of john and jesus by 'this generation' (7.33· 35) and the violent fate suffered by the prophets, for which 'this generation' is going to be held accountable (11.49·51; 13.34· 35a). This alone suggests that Q is responding rhetorically not just to petse· cution in general, but a lso ro Jesus' death in particular, u$ing the deuteron· omistic model. Funhermore, the Jerusalem Lament has in view a relationship between those killed and stoned by jerusalem and Jesus himself." A. will be J«n below, wme scholars take the jerusalem Lament as an utterance of a supra-historical figure, such as Wisdom (Q 11.49). But even if Wisdom wer< the speaker in 13.34-3Sa, at least ~tyGJ u~lv in verse JSb would signify a shift to jesus as speaker. so that his own disappearance ("I tell you, you will not $CC me ... ") is connected with the murder of prophets.D This strategy becomes dearer when Q 7.3J ..J5 is read in conjunction with 11.49· 51. Wisdom is named in both passages. In the former saying, john is rejected as demonic and jesus as a glutton and a drunk; yer Wisdom has been vindicated in John and Jesus and those who like them are 'her children' (Q 7.35). As Christopher Tuckett puts it, 'jesus and john constitute part of the series of Wisdom's messenger~ though rheir .spcdfically "'prophetic" .status is not spelt out here.'fO In the latter 5aying, Wisdom sends the prophccs. Thus both the prophets sent through the hittOry of God'$ re.lationship with his
56. Hulf8rm. NormaJiv~ Christianity. p. 34. S7. for instance~ Alan Ki.rk srgucd jn an Wlpubli.shcd p;1pe.r that Q t 1 (including Q 13.34-35 u the climax of the section} ustS W rbetork" of $t:ttU$ degracbtio.:~ and elevation lo. order co rnpo.ad to attempts to st.igmat.iu Jesus, to account for his death as murder, a.nd to explain his scarus elevation as Soa of man.: Kirk.. 'Is Q Without h$sion?' (p.'lptt pteteo.tec:l ar the S«iety of Bibl~J Liceracure AMual Meeting. November 1.998). 58. So~ for example, S. SchuJz, Q: o;~ Spnu.bqu~/1~ 4n EVdng~li.Jtn. (Zurlch: ThcOiogisc:her Verlag. 1972), p. 354. 59. A fuller disc.::ussion of the function of ).iy(o) Ujiiv hc.rc and tliewbere in Q is givea below in Cb.aptu 4. 60. Tuckett. Q 11nd tm. History, p.178.
The Duzth and R.e.urrection of]e.us in Q?
IS
people (n~~Tas
of Wisdom to 'this generation•. The introduction to the parable of the children in the marketp1ace begins with the rhetorical question, •To what shall! compare this generation?' (7.3 1). Similarly in Q 11.51 it is said that 'th.is gencrarion' will b< called to account for the blood o( the prophets shed from Ab
instanc-e, Acts 7.52). 3. lnferen... from the Deuteronomisti< Theology of Q A few scholars have wondered wherber Q's silence on rhe death and resur· reccion o f jesus is related tO its genre. Mi.g aku Sato, who argued for a prophetic rather than a sapiential genre for Q, suggested accordingly that 'the narration of a pcophel's death does not belong to the macro-genre of the prophetic book. The Source Q, which was deliberately a rranged in analogy wirh the prophetic book, thus probably contained no passion narrative btcawse it wt:S a prophetic book."' But for Sato this means chat Q need not be understood as representing 'a discrete circle in primitive Christianity' ·" Taking a different pt:rsptctive on Q's genre, K.l oppenborg noted that 'sapiential collections normally do
6l.
62. 63. 6-4.
Fot di$CU$SiOn, $CC Tuckett, Q and tiK Hittory, pp. 19~201 . Tuck.:n, Q fllf4 th# History, p. 201. Sato, Q u1fd Prophni.e. p. 383 (emphasis original; author's ttarl$ladonl. Sato, Q Jmd Prophdi~, p. 38J.
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
16
not concern themselves with the death of a teacher...u Howevtr; Q is unlike
most other sapiential collections in its •biographkal case•, and that •Q's natrarive world embraces the temporal range within which Jesus' death could be placed•.u The answer, argued Kloppenborr~ is robe found nor in the genre of Q but in its view of persecution, which is governed by deuteron· omistic theology: •Q democratizes Jesus' death by means of deute.ronomistic theology~ or, more acc;uratdy, Q bas not yet particularized that death by emplorring ir and interpredng it apologetically with motifs drawn from the
psalms of lament.'" More recently Alan Kirk argues, using cultural memory theory, that rhe document Q arose as moral exhortation out of •a sy.nergistic connection that ex_ists between commemorative and instructional acrividcs'.6• jesus' dearb was commemorated using standard cu1tura1 memory images and scripts (killed prophets, martyrs: Q 11.47-SI/, and 'rituali<ed activities commemorating marryrs ... become opporruniries nor just for narrative recitations or the m"'rryr's life and death, but also for instructional artifacts and activities aimed at inculcating and securing commitment to emblematic norms'." With this as Q's compositlonaJ impetus it becomes 'impossible ro sustain the view that Q is representative of a distinct community ... with litt.Je interest in Jesu.s' life and death'-"' It is widely held that Q~s lack of explicir rderence to jesus' death resulre.d from it$ interpretation of his death within the framewo rk of th~ deuteron· omistic theme of the rejection of prophets.' 1 james Robinson, for instance, following Steck concerning the coincidence of wisdom and deuteronomistic: traditions in Q 11.49-SI and 13.34-35,11 related Q 13.35 to the death of Jesus . .,-he theme that Wisdom is so regul~rly rejected on earth she finally rerums to he.aven' ,1.'1 under the influence of the deureronomis-ric view of
6$. 66. 67. 68.
Kloppenborg. 'Wter Fajth', p. 82.
Kfoppcnborg,. ' F..ast~er fajth', p. 82.
Kloppenborg. 'Euter Faith', p. 82. Kirk, 'The Memory of Violeoce and the Death of Jesus in Q', i.n ~ Kirk and T. Tharchet (eds.), M~ Tradition, tnuJ Tt-:ct: Uses of tM PaSI in &tly Cbristia11ity (Seme,ia Studies, $2.; Adaara: SociC'ry of BibJicsJ Literature, 2005), pp. 191- 206 (20U. 69. Kirk, •Memory of Violence'. p. 201. 70. Kirk, 'Memory of Viok:oce', p. 203. 71. For itlstaoce, Steck, lna.l, pp. 288- 89; Hoffmann, Stwdi
296-307. 72.. Stt<:k, lmul, pp. 1~27, 232. Sccdc. thought rbar the convergence occutred in the pre·Cbriscian Vorlage of ~~ uyil)(;$0 Tuckett, oo che ()c:h
The Death and Resuruaicm of Jesus in Q?
17
history appropriated withio Q's •judgmental apocalyptic context', becomes the view that Jesus' death was 'only the culminating inStance of the rejection of God's spokesmen by lsrael' - only thar, and nor a salvi6c event.14 Where- deureronomisric rreatments begin to differ from one another, however, is in the extent to which the death of Jesus is understood as the (implied) 'culminati1lg instance'. For Kloppenborg, the view of persecution in Q is corporate, so that •jesus' fa.tc evidently was nor yet an issue which required special comment. ' 71 No explicit 'special oommenr' in Q s ignifies that Jesus' rejection is decisi\'t, but s uch an infe rence is supportable. Paul Hoffmann, for example.• thought that in and of itself the deuteronomistic approach to jesus' death means that for Q "the fate of Jesus stands rather in continuity with the fate of all of Wisdom's messengers .... Hence Q speaks of his r¢jcc:tion only in connection with the fat~ of all the others.' 7' How~Yer, unde.r the influence of the confession of jesus as 'Son of man', ' Q quarifics the '"messenger" jesus in a unique and incomparable way, in ch:~r it identifies him with the Son of man.m In fact, accord ing tO Hoffmann, when the rejected one is identified with the Coming One (Q 13.3Sb), 'the traditional deutcronomi.sric framework is blown apart under the influence. of the expectation of the return of Jesus ... who fo < [the redaction of Q] is the decisive repre-
sentative of God's e.nd~·rime action',' * A problem arises, however. as tO how Q connecls jesus• rejection with tbe ongoing mission of the Q-community: Tuc.keu adds the "proviso' that
Q re-presents the message of jesus to 'this generar:ion· as a last opportunit)' for repentance.'• The implication is rhat Jt$us' rejection, though decisive,
74. j .M. Robin~. "jesus ~s Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tnu.lirio.o and the Gospek', in R.L. WiJkcn led.), Aspec.ts of Wisdom in }ud4ism and £4rly Cbris:im~ity (South Btnd, TN: Univtrsity of Notre Dame Pta.s. 1975), pp. 1- 16 (12-13); sec also jacobson.. 'Literary Unity', p. 386. :and First GMpel, p. 74; Schuh., Spruchqt.Uile, p. 354; H. von Lips, Weishe.itlic:he Troditiont-n im N~uen Tt.stam~m ('WMAr-tt', 64; Mu.nlch: Neu.kirc.hentt, 1990), p. 178.
15. KJoppenborg, 'Eaner F:a.ith', p. 81. Cf. Kloppe.obors, Ex~vating Q, p. 373: 'it scnns plausible that Q undcrstan& jesus:' death as an ln.uance of che '"typical•- perhaps dim:~ctic. - prophetic death'. 76. Hoffma('tn, StudiCI'I~ p. 188 (emphasis original; ·author's translation). 77. Hoffm.ann. Studim, p. 189. 5« a.l110 P. Hoffma-nn, •jetU$vctkUndigung in dtr Logie:nqutlle', io W. Pesch (td.), }eSUI in dar fva'!telitm (SBS, 45; Sturtgan: Katholi.scho Sibelwcrk, 1970), pp. S0-70 (65). 78. P. Hoffnurm, 'QR und der Mco.schC"::.rohn: F.ine vorl3u6g.e Skine', in C .M. Tucker~ et :11. (eds.}, The Fot'r Go~ J 9.92 {Fe&C$Cbriit Frans Neirynclt; B.ETI.. 100; 3 vols.; Leuven: lcuvcn Univer:sity Press and Pttn:n, 1992j, pp. 421-S6 • •'J'he RedJtc.tion of Q and the Son of Man: A Preliminary Sketch', in R.A, Piper (ed.), Tbe Gospel 8ehi,J th~ Gosptls. CMnent Sh4diu o" Q fN
Post-Mor1em Vindkalion of jesus in the Sayings Gos(MI Q
18
still stands ln the dcuteronomis-tk vi~w within a continuum of rejection that .stretches from the beginning of the sending of prophetS to Q's ongoing prophetic mioisuy.' 0 Thus even if Q sees jesus' death as decisi\•e, the deuter~ onomistic perspective- especially given Q sees its- own members as standing in that continuum - demands that this point not be pressed roo far. Several scholars think Q's application of a deuteronomistic: pe:npcc:tive to the particular case of Jesus is an COirly theological interpretation of Jesus' death, but one which is not salvific or expiarory.11 J
4. The Silence of Q Q, then, not only betrays a knowledge of the death of jesu~ but also shows evidence of artempts to interpret it theologically or tO handle it rhetorically, despite its failure to mention it directly. As seen, many scholars think Q consider-s the death of jesus as the climactic o r paradigmatic instance of the rejection of the prophets; however, Q does not give evidence of an approach to jesus' death which as.sociatt$ it with salvation. How is the silence of Q to be evaluated? Did Q know, but disagree with, kerygma tic approaches tO 110. 81.
Set espcciaUy Li.ihnnann, "Mark and Q', p. 64. Hoffmann. 'Jcsusw:rkiindigung-', pp. 64 ...65; Studie", pp. 188-89; Schulz. Spntdtqwtle. p. 351; Jacobs.on, Firu Go.spd. p. 260: Tuckett, Q tPid tht HittOI')'. pp. 22~21 ('a ~l.uivclr • tow" view'); Kloppenborg, Exeavati1fg Q. p. 37-4. 81. Xfoppcoborg, 'EaJtet Faith", pp. 77- 81 (31). KtoppcnbcM's has in mind 'tht mofi& of God-'s ,.indication ofje.\1$ as the right~ •uffcrer, the cttablifhJnc:n.t o( a tonple • not built with h2nds'"' and the apologcric use of Psalms 2l, •U , 69 and 109', S« aJso Kloppenborg, Ezawati"g Q. pp. 373-7-4. 83. Hoffmann. S"'dim, pp. 189-90. 34. Kloppenboti. &""""mt Q, p. 374; cl. Hu=do, ChM, pp. 229-31. 8S. jacobson, Fi•# Gosp.l, p. 260; B.L. Mack, Th• Lost Gotp
Lord,,..,.
The Death and Resurrection of ]eSt<s in Ql
19
jesus' death? Or did Q's silenet> result from ignorance of, or eve.n isolation from. s-uch approaches? These are difficult but important qu-estions, oneswhich will come up again in relation to Q and tradidons about the res-ur~ re<;tion of Jesus. Caution ls ne.ces:sary here. As m.any have pointed out, Q should not be ~;onsidercd an exhaustive summary of all that the community uspon· sible for it btHeved about Jesus.86 Generic and occasional constraints on the document must be taken st.riously, as they are, or should ~' with the letters of Paul. for instance. Thus, even if it is appropriate to judge that Q functioned as a 'gospel', that is., as the •guiding: theological statement• of a particular community," this does not mean l'har the document exhausu all the theological possibilitie-s for that community.n The cvldenc~ there is - including the silence of Q - has, of course, led differe nt scholars to different conclusions. Hultgren,. who con-sidered cardully the problem of Q's silence., thought t he evidence justihed placing Q within emerging 'norm3tivc Chrisrianiry'.'' Bur, as seen above, this conclusion involves raking Q 14.27 as implying a •sacrificial' death, and Q 13.35 as referencing the entry into Jerusalem, and various Q logia about jesus the returning or exalted •Son of man' as requiring a belief in the resurrection of Jesus.M Hultgren.. tending to give a 'kerygm
371; Hurtado, Lord /~sus CbriJt, pp. 232- J3. 87. 1'111: languagt: is that of 'Kiop~nborg, 'Easter Faith', p. 72. 88. Kloppenbocg, 'literary Convention. Self·Evideutt. and the Social History oft~ Q P~pk', in Kloppenborg 2nd Vu~ (tds.), &rly CbrisJUinity, Q <Jnd j~5us, pp. 77-102 (79). 89. Hultgren, NormtJtivt c.hri5-:ianity, pp. 37--41. 9'0. Hultgren, N0rm41-iv~ Chris-Hanlty, pp. 33-JS, 39. 9 1. Klo-ppenborg, E.x-cawri"g Q, p. 374; Kloppe-nburg, ' faster fahb*. pp. 76-82; S« also Hu.nado, Lord J~ms Christ, pp. 239--44. ,2, Kl.oppenborg, bGIW<Jting Q, pp. 373-74. Kloppenborg advocates allowing for
Q's view of Jesus' dealh to be stucHed ~Jongside. for i rut~noe. the Pat.di.ne appco11eb, while avoiding the problt"IXI$ pr~nted by theories r~uiri.ng a Q commurury that maiota.iord o'trr a eocuideab&e length of ti.mt' 2 ceruin degrtt of 'i:solation'lrom other dcvdopments in urly Chri,rianity 4374).
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in tile Sa)·ings Gospel Q
20
Kloppcnborg rightly observes that Q fails to individualize its view of persecution in relation to jesus· end 3nd tO narrate rhat end, or predict it explicitly. as the Markan passion predictions do. This is so even though the elements of the wisdom tale are all present {but not 'emplotted'). a nd despire Q•5" tra jectory towards biography (and away from instructional lircrature).'3 He also o bserves that Q does not make use of the psalms of lament," despite rhe ample. evidence in Q of an interest ln rcinscribing scriptural traditions." H ere Kloppcnborg•s c:.ondusion is appropriate, that this s uggC$l$ Q had no knowledge o f tbc narrative passion tradition. However, these particular motifs o f the gospel passion narratives a re not identical with, nor the onJy vehicle for. a salvific interpretacion of Jesus' death." This idea, as has been well documented, may be found in the traditions known co and used by Paul.~' It is nor o ut of the question that the cradents of Q knew of such an approach but found themselves a t odds with it."'This seems a more cautious conclusion than co say Q was ignorant of salvific understandings of J esus'
death. An analogy might help illustrate why. T he a uthor of Luke..Acts, as some have observed, seems hc~tant tO take up the view that j esus died 'for us' or 'for sins'." This observation is reached by considering nol only what Luke contains - including language and material emphasizing that JC$US dies as an innocent martyr 100 - but also what Luke does not contain (i.e.~ no reference to jesus' death in rhese terms}. 101 Of Kloppenborg, 'Easu:r F3ith', pp. n-80, 82; Bx~awting Q, pp. 371-73. Kloppenborg, 'Easter F-aith', pp. 80-81; E.xc.avating Q, p. 373. 95. D.C. Alli1100, T~ lntmextwd }~JUJ: Scriptur~ in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Tritlity Pt-e$$ lntcmariooal, 2000). .96. The pat;stQn n:mativcs themselves are n()t exacdy repltte with •salvific• overronei. 5« J.S. Gtten, T~ D~th ofJ~sus~ Tradltion p,rJ lntt:rpreta.tior~ in the P#SSion NPrratillt fWUNT, 2133; TUbi"3"n' Moh• s;ebed<, 1933), pp. 32o-23. 97. £.g., Rom. 4.24--25; 1 Cor. lS.3. Sec R.N. Loro..genecke:; New Wine into Fresh Wineskins~ Contmual.izi1tg Jhe E#rly Cbristion Conft$$'101«$ (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson:, 1999), pp. 16, 18, 41-42.; Hurutdo, lArd J~nt$ ChriJt, pp. 128- 29, 170-7 1. 98. Hurtado al.lows for this possibility but add! 'wetr: tb.i! the e&$C", we would apt<:t ~me indication ol differenttt ovu rhe m;atter with other Ch.d$1iOJn. <:irelcs' (J..ord }UUJ Christ, p. 2-42), raising in a similar context the Cosp$1 o{ThOWJs, 'whicb clearly shows dut i cs!r;~men knew and rejected other vmiont or Cbris.tian tc:achios• (p. 230). On tbe other band, are there signs o f mar.k¢d d isagrccmmt in Luke-Acts with the idea of Jesu~ dying •for sins'? In.stead, the iSS'ue it; deflected through th.e deployment o( other inttrpret~tivt strategies. 99. A$ Hulcsren poinu out, the Fourth Go$pel lll130 l~ck• $UCb J view (N()mf.:tt~ CMisrianity, pp. 38-39). 100. Set G.E. Stirling, 'Mor-1 pbi/0$()/1bi: The Dr.31h of ~11 in Luke', HTR 94 12001•~ pp. 383-402 (39l-400) ~od tbt: literature cit<"d then:i.n. 101. The: only ea.ndid:atc$ for 11ulogical Contrown~ on the Text of tM Nnu Tesrammt (New York; Ox-ford: Oxford Univeniry Pres:s, 1993), pp. 199...203; d . F.G. Carpinelli. ••[>o Thit; <1$ My Memorlal'" (Luke 22:191: l~n Soteriology of Atonement', CBQ 61 (1999), pp. 74--9 L
93. 94.
The D1!4lh and Resurrec.tion of]e5us in Q?
21
course, scholars are on surer grou.nd with Luke than with Q because the author's source material is available for comparison (e.g., Mk 10.45 has been omitted from the convcnation about greatness, Lk. 22.24-30). This has not prevenred scholars from disagreeing about the significance of both what luke does contain and what it does not. At least one may conclude modestly that
Q and the Resuffect.ion of je.sus If Q knows of jesus' death, and h•s offered oome kind of interpretation of il, even implicicly, does Q contajn a corcC1ponding view of his vindication? In particular, a problem arises in view of Jesus' death because Q also shows evidence ol ~ bclitf in Jesus M the Coming One or the Son of man, i.~., as an exalted or escharologicalngure (Q 3.!6b-17; 7.18-19, 22-23; 12.8-9, 39-40; 13.35; 17.23-24,26-27, 30; 22.28, 30), and as one who speak• on behalf of WISdom (Q !0.21-22; 11.49·5 I; 13.34-35). Regardless of Q's compositional history, one 1till hots to make sense of how in the •finished' document these
102. Hurudo is correct th2t tbe 'choice' of the compoietS of Q to treat the death of Jesus u they did 'batdly iodjcaces an ignotanoe of, ot lac:k of inte~c in, other c.ons.tru.al$ ol Jc$US' ~atb' !Lord }~lUI Chr•'t t, p. 242), but it must be ~mplu.$ited tNt ~n inu~reM: in
otber corutrua\s of jestH' death cannot be proven.
22
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
materials are to be read together with one a.nother. How can Q•s exalted view of Jesus be accounted for, especially in view of its knowledge of his death by crucifixion? As just discussed, urc must be cxe_rd-scd t.h at our inference~ nor exceed the warranrs of the literary evidence Q represents.
1. Resu"ection in Q It should first of all be noted that Q rnakes no explicit reference to the resurrection of jesus. In a way, this is nor surprising: if Q did not contain a passion narrative, why should it mention jesus' rC$urrecrioo? But the gospels for whic:h resurrection theology is of paramount imponance a]so make reference to Jesus' resurrection during their accounts of his ministry. 103 Ncvenhdess, resurrection per se is nol outside the scope of Q, for a general resurrection is mentioned in Q 11.31-32 as the forum of the final judgment: the Queen of the South will be raised (ty
charocterisri< of Jesus' ministry (Q 7.22} also uses the standard verb iy
raised: how should the silen<e of Q be evaluated? The foregoing discussion on the death of Jesus in Q clArified the cfif6culties
involved in claiming either that Qcould not have known about certain interpretations of Jesus' death or that such were presupposed (but not mentioned or appealed to) by its tradems. The same concerns relate to [he question of
103. See Mk 8.31; 9.31• 10.34 pu~; Mk 9.9 pat. Mt. 17.9; Mt. 12.40. 104. N.T. Wright tries to make a case for otbr:r, mort' clJiptica.l nJc«oces to ' resu.r• rection' in Q, including Q 3.8; 9.60; 12.28, 33; 17.33; 22.30 (the ~atr cwo are the n\0$1
likely c:aodidarcs). N.T. Wright. 'Resurrection in Q?-. in D.C. Horrell :md C.M. Tuckett ((:ds. ), Chrisrology. Controwny tmd Community: New Te-stament Essays (Festsc-hrih O.R. C.atdtpole; NovTSup, 99; Le:iden: Brill, 2000), pp. 8S- 9? (89-93). lOS. See Jt, Uro. 'Ap
2J the resurrection of jesus in Q. On the one band, as noted above, it is mistaken
w insist char Q could have functioned as an exhaustive compendium of the community's theological views. But if, on the other band, the resurrection of jesus is nOt mentioned or appealed to where it might have been useful tO Q, then it is equally problematic to suppose that resurrection is a theological presupposition lurking behind orh
107. So Kloppmborg. 'But« Faith', p. 81. 108. Kloppenboi'1L. 'FA.s:ter Fa.irh', p. 34. 109. Thl3 is even c:lu~r in Mt. 28.18-20.
24
Post-Mortnn Vindkation of'"'" in tht Sdyings Gospel Q
presumed, then in its absence some other mode of vindication or validation must be sought.
2. Q, 'Easter', and J-.us the C<>ming Sen of Man Was there a formative or originating experience of Jes-us as exalted, formu~ tared or con<:eptualir.cd in terms of 'resurrC':tion' - an e"pericnce we might call 'Easter' - at the root of the christology of Q? Several scholars have argued that Q in one way or another presumes 'Easter'. As seen above, TOdt was the first co insist that Q originated in a non-ke,ryg.matic 'sphere' of Christianity, even though he supposed that the death and resurrection of Je$uS were of fundamental significance co the community. He argued that the communicy could rake up j esus' proclamation as rheir own since the re-surreccion had confirmed jesus' aurho_riry. 110 The resurrection enabled lhe renewal of the 'fellowship• which was characteristic of jesus' e:uthly relationship with his followers, and which wouJd one day be confirmed in full by the Son of man at the Parousia. For TOOt. then, the resurrection is both the means whereby the communiry ldentified Jesus with the coming Son of man and 'the affirmation of his exousia'. u• Thus the resurrection allows the communiry ro re· prodaim Jesus' message, since it is confirmed as the procla· marion of the Son of man. Toot also thought the Q community originated the tradition which identified Jes-us with the coming Son of man. 112 This view relies on not only a prcsumpr.ion of resurrection faitht113 but also a certain interpretation of it - based upon the Johannine and Lukan resu rrection appearances" •- as 'restored fellowship' . In addition, TOdt depends upon Acrs 2.22·24 for che schema in which jesus• •aurhoriz.ation' is rejecud by the authorities- most decisively in bls execution- and yc::t is confirmed by God through the resurrection. 11 s Again, while Q's deuteronomisdc pctspc:ctive demonstrates a knowledge of jesus' rejecdon and death, it is to go beyond the evidence to suggest that Q has in mind the same schema as evident in Acts, particularly since the resurrection is not explicitly mentioned ln Q. Nevertheless) according to Kloppenborg, TOOt's view that jesus' sayings are. legitimated through his resurrection· based exaltation as Son of man has
110. TOdc, Son of Man, pp. 2S()...5.l; $C!e KloppcobOl&, 'E.utcr Faith•, pp. 83-84. Ill. TOOt, Son of M4~ p. 253. 112. TISch, Son of Mlrn. p. 231. J 13. TOOt, Son of Man. p. 231: 'Thank& to t he impetu!l giveo by the: .Easter event, the earlit-st: beginnings of Christology (dut is,. the idcnti.fiation of jesus wlth the coming Son of man} rhus &prang up from $0teriology lt~ t iJ. the promise of the S01J of ~ao"$ hen~ly ac.knowkdgmcnt of those faithful to Jesus.• Q 12.8-9).' 114. TOdt., Son of M4n, pp. 2.5~51; following K. Reng.~rorf. Die Au{e.r1ulnmg J~~U: Form, Art vnd Sinn Jn ttrchri.stl~hm Oturbotulu•(1 {Witttn•Ruhr: Luther, 1952), p.. 5.1. US. TOdt, Son of l&m, pp. 2.11-52.
J-•
Tbe DMth and Rburrectio• of
tn
Qt
2S
been 'the mort widely repeated' view, and it found acceptance in the work of Norman Perrin, Ric.hard Edwards, 2nd Eugene Boring.'W Perrin's worlc in particular ck..suv« anc~ntion sin« it presumes a different
exegcrical tcbema than the one suggested by Todt. Perrin argued that 'the e.pca•tion or the coming of ]<SUS as apocalyptic Son or man is a product of (tlutlexegctical proceu' which first interpreted the r.. urteetion or jcous in
light of Psalm 110, and then interpreted the rcsultin.g ~,.tar-Christology' in light of Z..:h. 12.10 and Dan. 7. 13-1 4. 1" Boring rook rhe same view.' " The
exeserical proceos Perrin argued for 6nds supporr in Mk 1~.62 but bas left no tnce whatsoever in Q, 11 ' which r:;~n n ot depend on Mork for t his. Hoffmann a.rgucd that Son of man chricsrology Is a dominam feature o{ the Q ITUlltrilll. 110 Although he did not rely on the resurrection exegesis o( Ps. 11 0 and Dan. 7.13-14 supposed by Ptrrin, he undenaood Q's confession or Jesus •• the Son of man •• o riginating in t he 'apol:alypsis of the Son' (Q 10:21..22), which in Hoffmann's view is essentJally an '&.s-eer' experience -an ex-perience or the exalted (hence risen l post-moru~:,m Jesus. m Hoffmann noced that Q doe'S not contain any Easter stories, nor 1ny rderence to me kind of Easrer k
similar langu;agc: With1n d\C conapcual framework of the Q group.. che Eucer cvt:nc I.S of primary 11Qni6c:mcc: jetU~ has been given aU power 'nd h.u betn o.1lttd :u the Son o£ man. ln the tcrmJnolocr o£ tht:ir mvironmc:nc - for how c• would they cxprcu th.inp? - 1hq dacribtod tbit insight, whicb exceeded all human u~r~. 11 the ·~vdacion of the Son'. 111
1'hus for Hof(rnann Q shows evidence of an experience o f the exalted postf..Oister Jesus, and this was what occasioned rhe confession of jt:Jus as the Son of man. t 16. Kk.-ppmborg. 'Usttt Fairh',pp. I J-8.4, tefet'ring coN. Putin. 'The. Son of M.an in rhc Synopc:tC Tradition'~ 81bltn 13 fl.968), pp. ~lS: R.A. &lwarcla, Th• Sign o(}ouh ;. tiH TIMhi•l o( rk E<...fdiri8, ~. pp. 2........5. a..u,g «>M«r tu cmcrpt Vudom dtristolocr, ltu! dwly "--I>• of 'E&.re(
d<&.if1« .,..,..,. IS.,O.,, p. 171~ 119. L£. V.uac, 'The Soo of Mao Sayinp in Q: Str.u ianphjctl Loc.a.tkm :~nd Si.,.;fi<:ancc', mKloppmborg and Vuge (rds.), EMfy CltristWmity. Q •.wl'"'"• pp. 103-29 1127): l(Joppeobors. Exuwtiog Q, pp. 376-n. 120. A.D. Jacobtoo, 'Apocalyptic: and dll! S~ying$ Sour<e Q', in Von Sqbrocc:k ct al. («!"-~TIN F""r Go•t>--42. Ill. Ho£fmano, Stttd.k"• p. 1<4 1 (author•s rr~ n!lllt ion) . u •
26
Post-Mortem Vind0ztion of jesus in the Sayings Grupe/ Q
Hof-fmann argued that this christological cognition was in fact the motivation for the composition of Q: We m:ay nore the proximity of Q 10.21·22 tO tbe ea.rlr Chri.srian te:Jtimoni.ell about Easter: for here, in the reYelation of ]e$\.1$ 'the Son'. i$ found tM Oligin of th(! group's confenion :and tht- basis for rbc origin of the co!Jc:cr.ioo of jesus' uyings. By mean.s of rhc revelation of Easter, it became dear (0 ]c:s.u5• dit;eiples that jeJus' daim. and a1w his 1DCS$agc:, had not bec:o aMuJJed in his death. but utbcr had rtoei\·od valjdation in a tta.rdins way. UJ
Q's contents receive an entirely eschatological orientation, for as the insuuc· tions of the Son of man they arc the standard to be uKd in the judgment. n• Thus ior Hoffmann, as for Todr, Easrer faith is both the origin of Q's bc~ef in
jesus as the coroing Son of man and the legitimation of his proclamation. u.s Hoffmann•s view of Q 1 0.21·22 as originating in an •&seer experience• relies on the similarities it shows with other expressions of Easter faith as missionlegitimating r-evelations. "'hile rhe experiences c.laimed in Mt. 28 and Gal. 1 may serve the same legirimating function as Q 10.21-22, this need nor imply that a
~lief in Jesus'
resurrection was- the basis of the chrisrology of
Q 10.21-22. Jn more recent discussions of the Son of man material ln Q, the christo· logical issue does not .seem to come to the fore; rather, stratigraphical and compositional que.stions are the primary focus.lU: In some uea.t mems of the question, rhe Son of man sayings are assigned to rhe formative stage,"'1 while in others they are of deds1\le importance for the Q redac:tion(s). Ut 123. Hoffmann. Stutl•'~n, p. 142. 124. Hoffmjntt., StN.dim, p. 189. 125. It is oor entirdy clear how this view - particularly the aspect which connects 1ht origin of Q as a coU ~ion of Je$U$' uyirtg$ to the (Easter) 'apoka.lyp$i$' - «latd to Hoft'ms.nn's mort rcc.mt vitwS oo tbt Son of man exptearion as charaatriscic of the Q redaction (Hoffm<~nn. 'Redaction of Q'). (26. See the fUIV~ys of C.M. Tuckett, 'The Son of Man in Q', in M.C. de Boe-r (ed.J, From Jesus to Jobn: Essay' on jesus lind Nt'W T~stllmenl Christology (Fenschrift M. dcjonge; )SNTSup, 84; Sbtfoefd, )SOT 1993), pp. 196-215; T"'ke<~ Q a•d rh. History, pp. 239-82; Hoffmann, 'Redaction of Q';j.M. Robiruon, •'fhc Son of Mao in the Saying.'~ Gc»pd Q'. in C. EJsas («<.), TraditiQn u-,.d Translation.: Zwn Probkm der •tmr· blwrellen Obersazbark~it religiiiser Phittomene (fesrsch.rift C. Colpe; Berlin and Ntw Yorlc: de Gruytu., 1994), pp.llS-35; and Uro, 'Apocalyptic Symbotism', pp. 98- 101. 127. Stt, for i..ostan"' D. LUbrmann, o;. R.edlllttirm dn Logienqu~/Je (WM.Al\'T, 33; Neuldrchen-Vluyn: Neuki.t<:btncr Verlag, 1969), pp. 4G-41. Bolb Adeto. CoUini and T~en find Son of mao sarlnts in every layer of the Q ttadition: CoJlin.s, 'The Soo of Man Sayings in the Sayings Source', in P.j. Kobddti and M.P. Morgan reds.), To Tow& the Ttxt: Bibliul ..d R•laud Stvdiu (F...,.hrilt ).A. FituOyer; New Yorlt' Crossroad, 1989), pp. 369-89 (389); TIICiuott, 'Son of Man', p. 215. 128. See A. Polag. Dk Christolog~ de Logknquc.Ue (WMANT, 4Si Neu.kirch
p,.,,,
Tbe Death and Resurrection of j esus in Qf
27
One of the mosc significant developments arising from the intensive stud)• devoted to the question is that most scholars now - in oontraS[ with earliet s<:hola!$ such as TO
Q tends to indicate the initial stages of the cbristological devdoprocnt from a ncMHirulu, non-apocalyptic idiom ol~t gen.tric meaning. thar by implication could have espe-cially the -s~aker in mind, as us.td by Jett.1S. When(~ Q com.muniry dlen ucribtd ro him a deci$ive r<~lc at the judStntt'lt, the idiom cMra<:tc-ristic of hi, &JX«b was put on his t~ in apocalyptic sayings. UC.I
This developmental scenario is nor beyond question, though it has certain merits; but it leaves unanswered the crucial issue: on what basis did the Q community come tO ascribe tO Jesus a decisive role 3t the judgment?
J . Q, 'Easter', and the ugitimation of jesus' Teaching It has alxeady been noted how TO
28
Post-Mortem Vindication ofJesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
have great significance in any of the treatments discussed here, it may be stressed again that the problem of legitimating jesus' sayings becomes more acute in the face of his rejection and exec-utjon. Robinson argued that btcauS< Q and the G()Spel o{ 1'honras lack any reference co either the cross or resurrection, they also lack a clear reference point for distinguishing- from the per!ipective of the works themselve.s - between pre-Easter and post-Easter traditions. Even Q 10.21-22, which
Hoffmann h.,.d suggested
reminiscent of Easterworient:ed authorita .. tions,'" and which falls 'in the middle of Q', cannot imply any kind of chronological referent. 'Easter does not fall here, ... or anywhere else in Q. Q has the timelessness of eternal ttuth. or at least of wisdom literature.m 3 wM
Robinson did suggest, however, that Q seems to presume ~a priority of t he Holy Spirit after Easter to Jesus prior ro Easrer'.ll" What this means for Q and the legitimation of itS content is that 1je$uS rose, as the revalidation of his word, into the Holy Spirit', so that ' Easter is then noc a point in time in Q, but rather per-meates Q u the re;~lity of jesus' word being valid now. Or at least so it might seem especially for cho~ who understood the resurrected Christ as Spirit.> 135 Robinso n meant 'Easter' 41S 41n 'event' which occasioned a shift in the community's c.hristology, and nm merely as a change in hermeneutical persp«:tivc:. This raised responses from Bunon Mack and Kloppenborg. Mack took issue with Robinson's two assumpt ions o f (1) a common Easter faith for all forms of the early j esus movements, and (2) an apocalyptic mentaliry as the common denominator for both sayings-orien£ed and kerygma-oriented circles in early Christianity. Mack caHed this 'the apocalyptic-ktrygmatic hypOthesis of Christian origins'.' " Mack rightly insisted rhar 'Easre:r' is 'roorc:d spedlica1ly in the kerygma',u 7 but the "kerygma', if defined in relation co (e.g.} 1 Cor. 15.3-5, Jcfr no concrete evidence in Q as having been of formative importance for the Q community. Mack thtn wt-nt on to ask whether any other modtl besides resurrection theology could account for Q material such as Q 10.21 -22 in parricul.lf and for the legitimation of jesus' uyi:ngs in Q in general. Wisdom theology could explain such aspectS of Q, which in Mack's view was moving, at the second stage of its composition, towards a re132. HoffmaM, Studien, p. 141. 133. RoblDSoOn, 'JesU$ ... From Eas«(£\ p. 23. 13<4. Robinson,. 'JesU$- from East«\ p. 24. 135. Robinson, 'j<sus- from Easter•, p. 24. Sttalso Robinson, •The Critica.l Edilion o( Q .and t~ Study of J~W$·, in A. l.indcm<~nn (ed.), Th~ Soyf11g1 Sour" Q anJ th~ His.loriC41 }uw.s (BE.TL, 158; Lcuven: Uuvm University Press and Peeters, 2001), pp. 27-52 (35): 'the Q comrounity, in it$ oenual mi$sion of proelaizning the $Aylngs of Jesus, was pr9cticing their fsith in hi' resurrection, even though resurrection langtt3gc:- is not thei11, but ours'. 136. S.L. Madt, 'tord o( the Logia: Savior or ~ge?', in C. W. Hedriclt ct d . {fds:.).• Gospel Origins 4nd Christian Beginnings (Fc:sachrift J.M. Robinson; forum Fudck:$. 1; Sonom•, CA' Polehrid8,", 1990), pp. :H8 ($). 137. M.a
The Death and Resuffection of]est<s in Q?
29
appropriation of jesus as an 'epic-apocalyptic' founder figure in supporc of Q'-$ polemic against irs deuactors, while retaining his chjef significance as the ori,g inator of the teachings to which the community w~5 primarily orienred.u• This re-appropriation has implications for both the Son of man material and the legitimation of Jesus' sayings as a wholc.u' But specifically 'the mythology of personified wisdom' attributes epic perspective to J.. us: •This means that Jesus could easily become a revealer figure without any a ppeal to an "'EaSler• mythologem, should the dispensation o f spec-ial knowledge be of interest to the Q tradcnts.•l40 A similar approach was caken by Kloppenbors, although more than Mack he appealed to aspects of Q's sapiential genre as fundamental to the legitimation of jesus' $3yings. •tc:gitimatiOtl o ( wisdom sayings ... was a requirement common to virtually all sapicntial co1lecrions', and this was accomplished on the basis of either the sage's reputation or some transctn· dental authoriry. 141 Where Q differs from other sapiential collections is in ils belief in jesus as the 'exclusive mediator of wisdom~: 'Q ... as.sociat·c:s the acquisition of saving knowledge specific.ally with llttachruent to Jesus and his words. •I•U For Q this dQes not result from a belief in Jesus• resurrection, but from a 'functional identification of jesus and Sophia•.10 In fact, II one wish($ to spc:ak abour Eastt.r at aU, Ollt' must say that what the Markan and post•,..tarkan Easter ttaditions loulize and partic:utari.u- by narration> Q assumes t() h.avc: dway$ been ;a char:acteris.tM! of Jesu$• word$ u the words of Sophia. (... ) The soteriotogical intensi6c:u:ion of Jcs~· sayings and the autboriry that accrllt'd to them are nol srounded in an c:v(O.t at the ~nd of his lift-.., but imttad arise out of the ch~r:acur of his word$ 2$ words of, :and ultimately gu~ta(lteed by. Sophi~.t«
Thus in Kloppenborg•s view, "Easter' for Q is not an event but a hermeneu .. ric.·d pefSpt'-"tive. 145 Mack and Ktoppenborg show that a beHef in Jesus' resurrection is noc oecessary to the legitiiD3tion of Jesus' sayings in Q; however, if Jesus the sage is assimila1ed to Sophia"' this only reinforces1ht problem of Q~s exalted view of jesus- whether as the coming Son of man, or as Wisdom's messenger in whose words lay salva1ion, or even os Wisdom herself- especially in view of Q's knowledge:-of Jesus' death and dforts to make sense of it. If there is no dca·t evidence for a belief in jesus' resurr«tion, is there an alternath•e mode of vindication? Thus the major implic-dtion of the discussion so far has to do with the presumption of rC$urrectlon as a theo logi~l category of funda mental or originating significance in Q. If h cannot reasonably be inferred 138. See also Mack, Lo.st Gosptl. 139. Mack, 'Lord of lh< ~··· p. 10.
140. Mack, "l.ord ohhe Logiil', pp. J0-11. 141. Klopptnborg, 'F.outer Faith•. p. 87. Hl. Kloppe.nborg, 'Eut.:r faith', p. 88. 143. Kloppenborg, ' Ea.ster Faitb•, p. 90. 1<<. Kloppeoborg. 'Easter ra;
30
Post-Mortem Vindicati<>n of )esu.s m thr Sayings Gos(MI Q
from Q that resurrection theology was the foundation of the belief in jesus as rhe coming Son or man, or as the primar)' envoy of Wisdom who could speak in her name and whose teac.hings had soreriologicaJ value, then an alternative answer must be sought in what Q does in fact conc01in. While Q may hav~ known about the resurrection appearances o r traditions, and may give Indications {at some point in t he communiry's history) of an experience of some kind of formative or foundational chrisrologica) 'event' , and while it may even imply a va lidation of the message of Jesus (or those speaking in his name) as stemming from some kind of post·morrem vindication, Q does not use 4 Cesurrection' as the central theological axiom for vindication and validation as the Synoptics and Paul do. In effect, this is a Literary question about what performed these functions in Q, rather than a historical question
about what Q did or did not know. Ultimately, however, historical inferences must be drawn if it can be shown that Q brings to literary expression some other mode of post·mortem vil'ldication. This .srudy wiU attempt to show that Q givC$ evidence of a thcologic~l catcgOr)' - other than resurrection- which functioned in Q to bring to expression the related issues of vindication, exaltation, and Parousia.
Chapter 2
Q 13.34-35, THE jERUSALEM LAMENT: SURVEY OF R ESEARCH Q 13.34-35, rhe 'Jerusalem Lament' saying (Mt. 23.37-39; Lk. 13.34-35), provides an important way forwar_d with the problems of jesus' death and vindicarion in the Sayings Gospel.
n
(34) . lipouoaAri~' J&povoaAI]IJ. cinOKnivoooa ToUs npo¢Hhas Kal AI&O~OAoVOCI TOUS arrtOTCIA~··ous rrpos CIUT~V, 1YOOcXKIS ~&i/.qoa
irnauvayay&iv y(x TiKva oou, Ov Tp0rrov Opvts 'mouvciye:t Tl[ixJ) voooia
aUTi\s UrrO TCxs mipvyas, Kal oUx r\&ATioan.
(35) j&.) cX~ItTCII U~\V 0 o1KO$ u~c:lV. AOyc.> .. vlfiv, oV ~t\ ioqn ~· i"'S' [(n~" onJl Ei1YqTE" iUAQyq~OIIQS 0 ipxo~tiiQS iv OvO~QTI KUpiou. (34) Jerusalem Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to her! How often l wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her nestlings under her wings~ bur you were nor willing! (35) Look, your house is for
t. Robinson er .al., CritiCill Edition, pp. 42~23. Ooubl~ squ.art braekcu indicare probable but unctnain wordings, cwo dots rtprt'stDt materi-al which may ba"e been pri!Sent but c:::ant'\Ol be rec:onsrructed. and double :~.ngk bratk~t"' in tht tn1UI;~otion ttpttstnt words not in the Greek but ne«!illa.tY co the rt&naJation's sense (Crltlcal ediriQn, pp. !xx- boocviii). 2. Robill$0n et a L, CritiC~JI &#tion, pp. 422-23, wbicb alliO det&ils teXto(ritic31 probJems in Mr. 23.37-39 and Lie. 13.34-JS. 3. Aocording to the Critical &lition of Q, Q 11.52 did I'IOt Ofiginally follow Q 11.49-$1, but Q 11.46 (Critic41 Edition, pp. 280-81).
32
Post-Mortem Vmdication of )esU> mthe Sayings Gospel Q
while Lk. 13.34-JS follow• Q 13.28·30.' In addition, there is disagreemenr about the developmenc of the saying: many consider that the AiyG.l UIJi" sentence {13.35b) is ;t late or redactional addidon to the saying, and others chink that the whole complex was a late addition to the Q document. As to the sa)·i_ng's origiJl, many scholars think it was (in whole or in pan ) originally a Jewish judgmem saying taken O\'CC by Q. Most scholars agree, however, about how the Lotment should be assessed form
13.3Sb. One way or another, the common ground berwecn these two sayings - the theme of the rejection and murder of God's prophets and emissari~ -musE be addresstn: Lwvcn Uni-.·cnity Puss aod Pencrs, 1982}, pp. 29- 7S (6~7); R.A. Piper. Wisdom in thr Q TrtJdition: Tl~ Apboristie Teaching of }~sus {SNTSMS, 61; Cambridge:: Cambridge_Univcnity Press, 1989). p. 165; O.ft Catchpole, 1·he Q~#st for Q f£dinburgh, T&T Cl.ark, 1993}, pp. 257-SS; j.M. Robinson. '8uildi.ng Blocks in the SQcial History of Q', in H. Tau.s:sig and B.A. C3ste11i (cds.), R~imagining Christian Origins (Festsehrift R.l. M.1clc; Valley Forge, PA.: Triniry Prmlntem.ational. 1996), pp. 87-112; Robinson, 'The S
Q 13.34-35: s..,.,.,. of Res•arcb
33
Q 13.35b poses nvo main inrerpreracive problems. First, the clause 'You wiiJ not see me until you S3y ... • has generated a number of dJfferem inrerpre~ tations. This line could be a reference tO the departure of Wisdom, as in Prov. 1.24-28 and 1 .En. 42.2, but. as Bultmann noted, the reference co rhc Coming One suggests a rerum, and there is no Jewi.sh evidence for Wisdom departing and returning.' Some understand 'you will nor see me ..: to ~ferro the dearh of Jesus and see the reference <0 the Coming One as a prophecy of his return to judge those who rejected him.' Others see in Q 13.35b a reference tO a hidden, absent, or un5een Son of man, parttcularly in relation ro other Q material such as Q 17.22 (many will long to see rhe Son of man but will nor}' or Q 17.23·24 (the coming of the Son of man will be aslighming).' The second problem is the reference toPs. 117.26 LXX (Q 13.35b). For some scholars, the citation has an optimistk tone, balancing the forsakenness of the house declared in Q 13.35a.10 Some sec the !t.:~s-dause as a conditional prophecy: 'Q 13:3Sb ... means not, when the Messiah comes, his people will bless him, but rather, when his people bless hirn. the Mes~iah will come.' 11 Ochers believe the Comiog Ooc comes in judgment, since 0 ipxOJJE\105' appears earlier in Q as a 6gure of judgment (Q 3.161>-17). 12 A few see a reference to jesus• entry into Jerusalem (Mk t 1.1-1 1 parr.).lJ The following surve.y e\'aluares major contributions to the intcrprerarion of the jerusalem lament as a saying of Q. Important interprcrative matters remain unresolved) and require closer analysis.
Q 13.34-JS with 11.49-51 as Sayings of Wisdom Harnack sugge~'itc:d that Q 13.34-JS is a quotation from a now-lost jewish apocryphal writing, in part because he thought the j erusalem Lament 6. BuhmaM, HUtory, p. 11$; so also many ochers, iiKiudins 'b'lkc:, 'Enttiicl::uns' , pp. 514-15, and K~ppenborg, Form4tion, p. 228. 1. Hoffmann. Studien, p. 188: 'Jesusvt-rkUndigung', p. 64. 8. D.C. Allison, T~ jesUJ Tr4dition in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press Inter· national~
1997), p. 203. Catchpole, Qwst~ p. 274: 'The one who hugone away (d . Q 19:12) and who wiU c;ome (Q 12:43; 19:15} if t he Son or ro~n .' 10. R. Uro. Shup Among the Wolves: A Study on tin Mission lnstn.aiom of Q {Annates Academia<: k ienti.arum Fmnic:ae, Disserntioocs Huma~cum Littcnrum, 47; 9.
Helsinki: Suornalainen Tiedeakattmia, 1937). pp. 237-40; Alli!.On_}11.u TrtJdition, pp. 192- 204; Tuckett, Q •nd the History, pp. 174,204-07. II. ALLison, Jesus Tr.adition~ pp. 196 ...201 (201); H. van der Kwuk, 'Die Klagt Ober Jetu.ukm (Matth.. X:XW 37-39)', No11T8 (1966), pp.1S6-70; D.C. A1ti$0D0 'Mnt. 23:39 • Lukt 13:3Sb u a Condit ional Propbtcy', ]SNT 18 t 1983)t pp. 75-8-4. 12. So 8ult:nurm. HiJtory. p . 11$; HoUmann, Studien. pp. 175-78; ZeUt:t, ' £ntrUckung', p. S 19. 13. Huhsren, Normati~.~t Christianity. pp. 33-34; Meadors. Messianic HNald, p. 305. 14. HJroack~ $tJ)'I'" lf o( )UUJ, pp. 103, 169. J.H. Michael nored rhat the view
34
Post-Morum Vindkation of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
originally fo llowed Q 11.49-51 in Q, and that the attribution of the words to 'Wisdom' (Lk. 11.49) was original to Q as well. The quotation simply continued-. at least until the words of Jesus following the formulak- Aty~
UIJIV (13.3Sb).,.. The Mattbacan placement of the saying is not indispensable to thi! vtew, for many have drawn anemion to the wisdom motifs and the purportedly 'supra-hlsto.ricaJ' perspective of the speaker. tS Since Harnack, many have been reluctant to assign the saying (in whole or even in pare} to an apocryphal writing, but allow that it might have originally been a piece
of (pre-Christian} Jewish tradition" which was later, in Christian hands, expanded with v. 35b." Like Harnack, Rudolf Bultmann argued that the jerusalem Lament continues the quotation begun in Q 11.49, thinking it 'highly probable that Mtttthew has here preserved the order of sections in Q\ but that Luke displaced. the saying fro m irs original Q context, on the basis of the catchword 'Jerusale-m \ to an earlier context {Luke 13.31-33}. 11 Bultmann also thought jesus himself could neither have sent prophets nor offered often to gather the children of Jerusalem: thus 'the one making this sratemem must be a supra-histor,c.al entity, namely Wisdom'.l' Like 11.49-St, the lament was 'also originally a Jewish prophecy, whether Jesus himself quoted ir or whether the Church ascribed it to him'. Bultmann wondered whether verse
probably originarcd with O.F. S-ttaw.s, A New Li(4 of)~us (2 vols..; London: Willi:uns & Norgace, 2nd cdn, 1879), pp. 1.341-42; Michael. 'Lament ovc:r Jcrusa)('ID'. p. 102 n . .3. 15. BuJtmann, History, p. 11<4. Sttalso Hseoc.bt:n, •Matthlw 23', pp. 5~57• Sttdc, lsriikl. pp. 2J.O-:Jl; SU83', Vliulom, p. 61; Klop~lxng, FOffl'IIJtio"t p. 228; Pipe.r. Wisdom, pp. 164-6S; ja(;obton., FiNt Gospd, p. 213; TU(:kttt, Q and the Histt>ry, pp. 174-75. On the ~r ha~ many S« jesus as ~ apeU:er (with certQiio variations. as nOted): Grist. Jaws S<>phta, p. J<4S (Jesus is identified with Sophia); Hoffmann, Studim1 pp. 17~75 Uesus speaking nor u a s.upra·hitterk.al eotiey, but dt&~:ribing his own expcritoct of rejection); 8ori~ Soyi-ttgs, 111-73 (the risco Jesus spealdng through the Q p!ophets; so also M il~t. 'l«jecrion', pp. 2J5-37); Uro, She'J' Among Wolvtl, pp. 236--37 Ue.us $peJking: 'as a superhuman, djvioe authority'), 16. B~,~ltnunn, HiJtory, pp. 114-1$; H~ctk.'ben, 'Mattbius 23', pp. S6o-S1; Van dcr Kwaak, 'Klagc··, p. tS7; Steck, lsr~UI, pp. 233-39 (though for St«k t~ saying wa.s not in Q); Christ,)u.u SophiD., pp. 138-40; Klupptnbocs. Formation, p. 218. Othc:n S« thesaying as originating in iti entirety in the: Q com.municy: fi.rsr of all Sc-hulz, SprwhqueJJe, pp. 348-49; &odng. Sayinfl, p. 171;Jacobson, Fir$1 GOS(Hll, p. 213; Millet, ' Rejeaion', p. 2J8. 11. Bulrmann, HUtory, p . llS (though uncertain bow much of 13.3Sb is ao expansion); Hae11c:hen, •ManhlU$ 23', p. 57; SU38S, Wisdom, pp. 69 ..70; Hoffmann. 51-..JJ'm., pp. 176-?7; N cityndt, 'Reeer_u ()e,·clopmcnt.s ', p. 66; Kloppcnborg, fonmujon, pp.l28: Catc:bpole, Qut1-t for Q, pp.l7.3-74; Tuckett. Q ~~~d rln Wsuwy, p. 175. Others lfor varying re2sons) bold th2t 1334·35 w:as an origio2lly uniury piece o! lNidition: Van der Kwaak. 'KJage'. p. 16<4; St~k. lmul, pp. 227. 23.S; Jacobson, First Gospel, p. 211 {disoemins 4 chiastic taucrurc); Miller, 'Rt;cction•. p. 2J4 n. 36: Fk:ddennun. R.e«Ptttrwctio~ ll1td Ct>Mmt1114,., p. 707. 18. BuJtmann, History, pp. ll~ 1S. 19. Harnack. Sayi,gs o{/UtlS, pp. 168-69; &ultmann, History, p. 114. 20. .8uJtmaMt Hisloryt p. 115. Accordingly, Q 13.15 originally- read, ·~bold, JOUt
Q 13.34-JS: Survey of Researd>
JS
35b as a whole or only the material prior to the i(a)S-<:.lause was a Christian addition.10 Thus both Q 11.49·51 and 13.34·35 must be understood in light of the wisdom myth. h is a weiJ ..established component of the myth that Wisdom comes to the earth~ offers invitation to humanity in vain, and departs (see.. for instance, 1 Enoch 42). Bultmann took both parts of Q !3.35 - the foNakenness of the house and the disappearance of the speaker- to refer tO Wisdom's departure. Accordingly, then, AEyoo UIJiv continues the Wisdom quotation, and there is no ~ange of speaker. Funher, Wisdom will 'remain hidden until the-coming o( the Mt$Siah ... the one £px~E~ Ev 0v0J,~an IC\Iplou' •.u BuJtmann admitted that no surviving jewish wisdom texts show evidence of the view that •Wisdom, on her departure. referred tO her (or her representatives) coming to judgment, but it is quite intelligible in the context of the myth'.22 Also unclear on 8u1tmann•s reading is precisely how the coming of the Messiah was to be understood as the reappearance of Wisdom. Ernst Haenchen's 1951 article on Matthew 23 made rwo important contributions. Fi!"$t, Haenchen argued that Q 11.49·S1 and 13.34·35 were not originally together in a lost wisdom text, bec-ause they pres-em different 'historical" pers~tives on the rejet:tion of the prophets. He noted that in Q 11.49·S1, 'Wisdom' looks ahead propbeticallr to the future sending of the prophets, but in Q 13.34·35, the speaker looks back o n the sending of the prophets as something in the p2St.13 However, wrote Jack Suggs, 'in keeping with it$ form the doom oracle almost requires; a futu_re tense, while the dirge form of the lament equally require$ the past'.lf More to the point is Robinson's objection chac cbe forward-looking perspective of 11.49· 5 1 'is simply a device to present fthe oc:currc:nccs of history] once. they bavc occurred as fu(fillmeDts of God•s plan•.lJ Furthermore, the participle in•xu~hoov (Q 11.50) has a pment and nor a pte·historieal perspective, 'looking bacl through aU of history ... , t'len back tO its vtry beginning, co prescnc as culpable aU of history (as far as it goes in biblical terms: to 2 Chronicles)•.u Haencheo also argued that originally the pre-Christian saying ended at 13.35a~ thus, Alyw VJJi'v and what follo ws 'is not a c-itation fwm the Wisdom text, but is already a Christian addition in ..-Q ,.,.11 He diS41greed with boU;SC ia (= will remaio) foruken until you $-Ay, •at~d i.s the Coming One: in the nam<' of the Lord,..' B.ulonann did not explain wh:u morivued the :addition of ).f.ycu ~iw oU u~ i&)Ti ~t. 21.
22.
23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28.
Sultmann, His.tory. p. l lS. Bultttunn. History. p. 11$. H.aencbtn, 'Manhius 23'.• p. 56; Jacobson, First Gosptl, p. 209. Suggs. Wisdom, p. 65. RobUuon, "S
Post-Mortem Vindieation of]eSUJ in the Sayings Gospel Q
36
Bultmann that tbe verSt' refers to Wisdom r~maining hidden until her return with the Messiah. Many interp~:eters would agree th4lt Q 13.35b - either because it inrroduces some othe.r inconsistency with the saying's wisdom
perspective. or because of the formulaic: ~fyCal U~v~ a characteristic o_f Q- is a redactional addition.
Q l3.3Sb as a Conditional Prophecy H. van der Kwaak's study of the jerusalem Lament in Matthew asked whether the saying tefers to a future conversion of israel {Mt. 23.39; Q 13.3Sb). Following Bultmann, van der Kwaak thought that the whole oaying was originally 'a Jewish prophecy' (Q 11.49-51), either quoted by Jesus or attributed to him by the community,at but he contested the view that Mt. 23.39 was a Christian addition: "one ca11 maintain with equal iusrificatiOil that v. 39 was the original conclusion of vv. 37-38'.n Van dcr Kwaak's more important contribution was his suggestion that Matthew•s i (t.)sS &v & i TTT}Tt should bt- taken not as a temporal stacerne-mJ4 V.:an der Kw:tak, 'Kls.ge', p. 164 (:~.uthor't tt;tnJI~tiOI)}. Vander Kwaak, 'Klage'. p. 166. 31. Set M.;t~:~$01), Stlyinss. p. 128; Ste.:~ lmul, p. 237; Hoffm.tr:~n. Studict. p. 178• SchulL, Spruchqw1lk, pp. 3S8- 59 {strenuou.styt; Polag, Christologie, p. 94; Garland, 1ntSHtiott, p. 207 (in Matthew, at lean); Zeller, 'Entrikkung', p. $ 17. 32. Uro, Sheep Among Wolvu, pp. 237-38; Catchpole, Quest, pp. 27 1-74; Tuclu:tt, Q iUtd 1M History, pp. 174, 204-7. Sevcnich· B.u (/muds Konfrontation, p. 362t thinks the tOnfession of JC$us as Son of man wa.s CC)nsidcred redcmpc:ive (even for Jeru:s;_km, potentially at lnsc). jacobson thinks t his ref~n to a welcoming ~ttirude row-a.rd prophetic messengers (Did. 12.1; Pirst Gosp.l, p. 211). 33. Vao der Kwaak, •KJag~·, p. 168 . .H . In conua$t with. fc.>S fKf t On fi'"ln (ane$tod by 0 il) tk. U.3.Sb), which van det Kwuk admitted shobld be r.1ken temporalty ('Klage•, p. 169); be thought Manhew altered what appears in luke to 't(o)S' &v lP· 1?0t. 35. See the evidence 3upplied in v"'n der Kw;a.,k_, 'Kiage'', pp. 16.9-?0. 29. 30.
Q 13.34-35' Survey of Research
37
- which would imply that the speaker's absence would end when the greeting is uncred - but as- a condition.H 'The separation will come to an end when
you will acknowledge me a.s the Mcs:sia.h. •.u The greeting W~OYfllii'WOS" 0 ipxOil£\105 s igni6es an acknowledgment of jesus as the one who would come ahcr john, rather than a n 3cknowledgment of him at rhe Parousia. This is an invitation to conversion. through which the punishment descr ibed in Mt. 23.37·J9a is removed.)' This reading of the 'until you say' clause has been argued more recently by Dale AUison.n The most significant djffcrtnct between the interpretations of van dcr Kwaak and Allison is that Allison undetstands Q l3.35b eschatologically. 'The conditional interpretation commends itself by finding a middle ground that avoids the pitfalls of the other alternatives', namely, interpretations that see Q 13.35b as an announcement of either unqualified judgment ot unquaJified salvation/~ Allison offered four arguments: first, o ften in late Jewish sourc;.c:s the time of the final redemption is contingenc on some other event(s); second, Ecus can indicate a cQnting.ent state in Greek sente,nees; third , the structure of Q 13.3Sb is similar to a formula found in rabbinic literature (negative statement about the messianic advent; conditional partide ,1'; condition to be met); and fourth, the conditional interpretation .finds a satisfying 'middle g.round'.•0 Allison advanc-es van dec Kwaak's position considecably. 41 Vander Kwaak offered little insight into the signi.ficance of the •you will not see me~ clause. Because he understood the reference ro the 'Coming One• non·eschatologlcall)·, Jerusalem's •not seeing• is an csuangemc:nt from [he speaker which is ~lleviated by their rcc(>gnition or acknowledgment of Jesus a s the Coming Messiah announced by J ohn." He shifted the emphasis from the apodosis of the conditiOnal sentence- w hich, in his view. gives the speaker's disappearance, as the result of nor fulfilling che condicion o f acknowledgment- tO the punishment which i$ emph~sizcd in Q 13.34· 3Sa. Thus, chere is an invitation ro alleviate Jerusalem's punishment, bu[ the disappearance of the speaker remains something of a mystery. In Allison's view, ,,.You will nor see,., recalls Q 17.22, according to which people will long to ~>ee ooe of the days of rhe Son of ma.n but will not see it. In both places t.b e present is marked by the Son of man's absence. But that abst-nce will become a presence when unbelief gives way m belief. ' 0 Allison 36. Van & r Kwuk, 'Kb ge•,p. 168. 37. Van dec Kwaak,
39.
A.llison, ' Man. 23:39 • Luke 13:3.Sb". p. 80.
40. 41. 42.. 43. 44,
Alli•on, 'Man. 2Jo39 =Luke Bo3Sb', pp. 77- 81. See further Allison,Je.su.s: TroJdiJitm in Q, pp. 198-203. V.tn der Kwuk, 1Gage'. p. 168. Allisoo,)t'sus Tradition in Q. p. 203. AJiison,Jwu Tradition in Q, p. 203 n. .Sl.
38
Post-Mortem Vindication of]esm in the Sayings Gospel Q
thinks that Jesus' absence is to be understood as a punishment, but it. also charac:terizcs the time before the Parousia.« What AIHson calls 'Q 17.22" is only found in Luke:' however, where it is addressed to the disciples (as, moest likely, was the eschatological material in Q 17).
Q 13.34-35, the Deuuronomi.stic Tradition, and the Wisdom Myth Stec-k's srudy of the deureronomiSlic motif of the vioJem fate of prophets was important for the study of Q." Steck did not think the jerusalem lament derived from Q,47 bur his interpretation was neve,r theless important and inJluential. He believed that Jewish judgment-sayings were preserved in both Q 11.49-50 (v. 51 being a later Christian addition") and 13.34-35; although the two sayings were not actually joined before Matthcv..,..,s gospel, they nonetheless at0$C from che same drc:le-in Palestinian Judaism and, having the
same genre e prophetic saying of judgment'), they share a number of common fea tures." Wisdom personified speaks in both sayings, although they differ in historical perspective. Both also extend the violent rejection of prophers to include those sent (11.49; 13.34) to Israel after the biblical period." Moot importantly for Steck, the two sayings represent a unique-combination of deuteronomistic and wisdom traditions. In Q 11.49·50, which Steck dated berween 150 BCEand tbecomposirjon of Q,st Wisdom, as the one who sends the prophets, stands in che place of God as speaker and judge. According to Steck, this happened because in the deuterooomistic tradition God issues a call through prophe-t s, and in the wisdom tradition Wisdom issues s uch an invitation directly." In Q 13.34-35 this is developed further: Wisdom, who in an earlier tradition was scorned by the nations but found a home in jerusalem (Sir. 24.11), now is scorned by Israel and withdraws."
4S. lb~ JQP thought Llc. 17.22 was not in Q: Robinson, et :al., Critie41 Edition 1 pp. 500.01 . ~Suck, hrotll. MOJt Q scholar$ t~ ckuttronomjstic tr~djtion :as \•iul for the tboology of Q, if not for iu composition history: sec:, e.g.. jacobson, fflr Costnl, pp. 7(}.76. •7. S'eek thought th.t saying originated i.n a $ettin& eharacurited by a fear of .a.n imminent dcstru~on of Jerw.aJem (i.e., during tM JewLsb WarJ, .so does ooc dcrh·e from Q (brad, pp. 237-39,283 n. I}; d. Robinson. 'X.quence of Q\ p. 248. <48. St«k .lm~tl, p. 223. <49. Stee:k, lsr.ul, pp. 231-l21 239. 50. Stedt, /.ir4t:l~ pp. 22.3, 2J1-J2. SI. Steck, l~t4tl, p. 226. 52. Sr«.k, /srMl, pp. 225-16. Cf. Tuckett, Q and th# History, p. 170: 'Q thus seem$ to have inttoduc.:ed a DC'W rombination of tr~dirions in interpreting tbe re:jcctioo of i~ own MHltng_ers u in ;;~ lin~ of continuity with the rejected pr<~phcu. of the deut.eronomistit tudirion and with the 6gure o( rejected Wisdom.' 53. Steck, IMMI, p. 232. 54. Stecl<. 1.,..1, pp. 227, 235.
*
Q 13.34-35: S11rvey of Rest4rch
39
According to Steck, Wisdom therefore must be the spe-aker rhroug_hout Q 13.34-JS; he saw 110 evidence of any Christian expansion in this 'piece of Jewish tradition'." The supra-historical speaker of Q 13.34 cannot be God because of the divine passive Cc4>1nat in verse JSa; rhus the speaker throughout the saying is the personified Wisdom who withdraws from Jerusalem in verse 35b.» In particular, v. 35b brings ro fruition the judgment announced in v. 35a, so that the withdrawal of Wisdom signifies: a crime without salvation' in which divine judgment arrives as the destruction of Jerusalem: 'this following rime cannot therefore be undernood as a period of
change and obedience'•5' But the EW5.clause signifies rhar 'the following time without salvation is admiuedly temporary', and it looks aht.ad to an eschatological tim~ when Wisdo m's presence would be restored to jerusalem..sr Steck knew that no (surviving) source describes a return of the withdrawn Wisdom, so he took Q IJ.JSb to refer to the Son of man. Can the coming of the Son of man be equated with the return of Wisdom? 'Then the people will see once more Wisdom who withdrew, but in the form of the deeds of the Son of man, who judge$ and cond~mns.•n Thus Wisdom reappears a$ an inherent characteristic of the judging office of the Son of man. T!Us is odd bec-.ause another figure, the Son of man. im.rudes lnto the framework of the wisdom myth. st Felix Chrisr's analysis of the Jerusalem Lament was influenced by Steck, whose conclusions concerning the saying'$ genre, tu.dition history, and inHuences {the deuteJ:'onomiuic and wisdom traditions) Christ accepted. Chri
Stcd,ls..,.l. pp. 23()-32. Sr~. Israel, p. 235 (autbor's translation). Steck. b.rael, p. 236.
S9.
Hoffmann, St:u1Ji•"-, p. 176. also nOted th.i3 dif6culty, but Stcck't vie-w was nevttmaintained by Schulz,. Spnu:bqu#lk, p. 359.
St«k, lsr4el, p. 237. Steck referred to 1 £n. 49..3-4; 51.3.
t.~l~!l trill
60.
Christ,}•"" SophU., PI'• 142-43.
]#SUJ Sophia. p. 145 (authorll rtansUnion; empb.asis original); d. W. Oas fll41'1gell vm Mch U.l41 (TH)(h"T, 3; Berlin: Ennsetist:he Vttlagannalt, 2.nd«
61.
Christ,
Grundman~
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
40
refer'$ co jesus' disappearance through his death, resurrection a nd ascension:
'jesus• death and resurreetion appear as the single n~ent of the departure of Wisdom, who found no place on earth to lay down her head, and who returned tO her place. Jesus' ascension is therefore-nothing other than the disappearance of Wisdom. It proves that j esus is identified with Wisdom. •f<' Since Wisdom•s departutc: v--as considerc:d an esch:uological sign (Pcov. 1.28; 1 En. 93.8; 94.5)? so was jesus' disappearance.'-' Thus Christ anticipated, in 411 limited way, the a rguments of Zeller, who tried tO s how that the speaker's disappearance in Q lJ.JSb was a reference to Jesus' 3ssumprion, and th~u the 'Sign of Jonah' was 'the siglt of the one taken away until his return a,s t he Son of man'. u Suggs, on rhe: other hand, rhought ~he speaker in this pericopt was., in Q, Sophia', but that the saying 'can properly be attributed to Jesus only when the .step is taken which Matthew makes in the preceding pcric:ope, that is, when Wisdom and jesus arc: identi6ed•.47 But~ in his opinion, Q had not yet taken this step. Suggs' interpretation ran into t he same difficulty as Bultmann's: the return of Wisdom is not a nested in Jewish wisdom materials, so ipxo~•IIOS cannot be the speaker. but muSt be the Messiah (not the Son of man). Thus 'Bultmann is correct in his opinion that "Wisdom fore·tetls that s he will remain hidden until the coming of the Messiah" .>68 Like Bultmann, Suggs left unexplained how the coming of the Messiah is to be understood as the reappearance- of Wisdom.
o
Q 13.34-35 and the Reieaion of jesUJ Hoffmann•s view~ as seen in the previous c;hapter, is that Q 13.34-35 explicitly includes Jesus) own fate in t he violent fate of the prophets: che jerusalem Lament refers 'unequivocally' m t he rejection and death of jesus, parricularly in the 'you will not see me ... • line.•" In his essay on 'je:s-us-proclamacion in the Sayings Source'• Hoffmann incerpreted Q 13.34 as indicating Jesus• own rejet:tc:d appeals to Jerusalem. 'The comment "from now on you will no Jonger .sec me'" refers to the death of Jesus. Q additionally speaks not only of the threarening judgment, bur also ro chc: coming judge; rhus ir is dear that the one who is rejected is identical to the one who is coming. •i'Q f'or lioffrnaon, the belief in Jesus as the coming Son
6$.
Christ,/nNI Sophia, pp. H6-47.
~.
2tUt>r, 'ErurUckung'~ pp. 514- 16,522-25 (ciution from p. 522; aurhor's r:r:..os..
12rion). 6)_
Suggs:, WisdOnf, p. 61. .S~ WiJdom, p. 70~ citing 8ulu:nann. History, p. US.
69. 70. 71 .
Hoffmann, Staulien, pp. 187-88. Hoffmann. 'jcsusvcrkiindigung'. p. 6<4 (aurhor's tt;u~tnioo). Hoffmann. 'JesusverkUndigung', pp. 64-65; StMdi~. pp. 187-.90; d . Sevenieb·
67_
Q .13.34-35: Survey of Resear
41
of man meant that the rejection and death of jesus was, fo r Q, rhe decisive rejection of God's (or Wisdom's) appeal to the people of Israel through the prophets. 7 1 Hoffmann clarified and expanded this position in later work, in which he took issue with Steck's analysis. In Hoffmann's view, Q 11.49-S I and 13.34·35 were first joined by Matthew and the two sayings were not origi· nally together in Q; from this it followed that wrule 11.49-5) is given by Q as a saying o£ Wisdom, 'the Jerusalem saying in contrast is conveyed in Matthew and Luke as a &3ylng of jesus',12 against the prevailing view that the speake.r was 'supra-historical'. There is no reason to think the speaker is rhc one who sends the 'prophets and sent ones' (Q 13.34}, as is the case in Q 11.49. Although the present participles in the address to jerusalem reflect a general hlsmrical characreristic of the dcy,73 rhe ctutnge in tense ro aorist in the speaker's statement {t\8i.~floa) rdc.rs to the speaker's own experie-nce jn Jerusalem.r• Similarly, 'Jerusalem' (13.34a} refer:s tO the whole history of the city, but ..your children· indic;nes the speaker's contemporaries. Thus t he adverb rroociK15 signifies the sptaker's repeated appeals ln jerusalem, not all prophetic appeals through the ages. The •P<"ker aligns himself, however, with t he prophecs reiected by Jeru~alem and ex,peas his own rejection. 7.s The prophetic threat abour che forsaken house (13.3Sal, referring to rhe destruction of jerusalem~ was tn Hoffmann's view probably suggested by rhe general mood of the time; 'on the conuary, the manner of speech bas its basis in tbc rejection which the .speaker. jesus, experienced'. 76 Furthermore~ 'You wiU not sec me ...' does not refer to the withdrawal of Wisdom, but - b«au5C it t:.tkcs up the 6t$t person a.S in 13.34b - tO the rejection of the speaker, specifically, the de~th of Jesus: 'The saying is dir«:ted against the city in which Jesus was pu1 on triaJ.•n In Jesus• absence, the Q group took up his proclamation, but understood the im ermediate period as oriented specifically towards the coming of jesus t be Son of man.'1 Fina11y, Hoffmann argued that an eschatological interpretation of Ps. 117.26 LXX may be deduced from ocher references to the 'Coming One' in Q (Q 7.18-23; Mt. 3.11 • Ql, where the expression is a description for the Son of man idencined with je-<us. Q 13.34-35 chus looks ahead to a time when the Son of man will be revealed (Lk. 17.30 = Q; cf. 1 En. 62.5-6).
8a)C,/$rtUls Kon{tonl4tion, p. 362. 72. Hoffmann, Studien~ p. 113 (author's ttanslation). 73. So ~lso Manson. $dying~. p. 127. 7<4. Hoffmann, Studkn, pp. 1 7~74; cf. Robinson, 'The Sequence of Q'. p. 24<4, wbo e:Jtplaio$ the ten$e$ diHe:rendy :and rakes Q 13..34 (the dit«:t ~uti o( Q 11.49-51) a.s a saying o( Wifd ort~. 75.
Hoffmann, StHdien, pp. 1 7~74.
76. 17. 18.
Hoffmann, Studkn, p. t7$; ef. Hofrmann, 'Redtlecion of Q'. p. 191. lioffmann, Studim , pp. 17&-80i citation from p. 180. Hoffmann, Studkn, p. 178.
79.
Hoffina~ Studim,
p. 178.
Post-Mortem Vindie4tion of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
42
Therefore, on the buis of dti.t pualld and tht: wording of the saying icsdf. in which (the blessing) c:an only be spoken to the one who judge$ Jeruulc:m, the taying looks ahead to the greeting of the Son of man who comes as tbt' judgt- who will condemn jerusalem. At dut time, they will and mu.!lt rec:ogn.iu and acknowledge je:~i\1$ a$ che
Son of man. But it will be too l:ne (or their redempcion."'
Hoffmann thus reached the s;~me conclusion as Steck, that the speaker announcing the destruction of Jerusalem {13.3Sa) also foresaw its final and irreversible eschatOlogical condemnation (13-3Sb)." ln his most recent work. Hoffmann associates Q's use of the deuteronomistic tradition and its idcntifiriented 'revtlarion' as rhe basis of jesus' exaltation. The: theological presupposition that allows the identi6cacion of the rejected one with the Coming One is a Son of man conftssion ti:Lat, as seen above, presumes Easter faith.••
80. 8 J.
8l. 83.
8<. 8S.
Steclc,lsrMl, p. 237. Hoffm.ann, 'Rcda~on of Q', p. 192. Tw:k
Q 13.34-35: Survey of Rmar
43
Q 13.35b: the Assumption of jesus? Zeller crlticized several aspects of current interpretations of the jerusalem Lament in his 1985 essay 'Entriickung zur Ankunft ah Menschen$0hn'. He did nor rhiok rhe saying was originally a conrinuarion of Q 11.49-51," and noted that because there is no par:~llel fo r Wisdom's 'personal return in t he Meu iah or as the Son of man', many interpretations of the saying become problematic." Thus be offered assumption as a better clarification of the 'you wil1 nor see me' clause, observing rhar ~•not seeing"" is a characrerisric circ-umlocution for :Jssu.mption (e.g. 2 Kg.s 2.12}', and noting its proxjmity to disappearance language, which is more conventional assumption terminology." If Q 13.35b refers to the sp.,.ker's assumption, argued Zeller, there is here 'an overlap with the Sophia-myth, insofar as one similarly seeks for and does nor find Wisdom·. The main difference, however, is that jesus~ d isappearance is an act of God, whereas when Wisdom leaves humanity, she depans to her rightful p)ace.u ln contrast w ith the reappearance of Wisdom required by interpretatio ns s uch as Bultmann•s, the rc.appearan~ o f Jes-us does nor pose a problem in ZeUer's construal, for in both j ewish and Christian literature 'assumption and eschatologic.al funcrion corrt· spond co one another' .., In Zeller's view, the "Coming One• is }e5us, who by his assumption is insraiJed as the Son of man; an analogy is found in 1 Enoch 70-71, where the assumed Encx:b is identified with 'that Son of man' (1 En. 71.14). The 'seeing' of the Son of man (cf. Mk 13.26; 14.62; Rev. 1.7~ wiU beta terrible seeing·again', which results in the acclamation of blessing.,. How does this interpretation contribute to the understanding of the Jerusalem Lament as a whole? First, Zeller thought his reading clarifies the omission of jesus' death from Q 13.34: assumption is typically understood as an esca~ from death, so although Jesus' death is probably implied, it was intcntionaUy .skipped over in the saying. The idea of assumption can be used of historical persons twho die a sudden death or who vanish under undear
86. 87.
Zdler. 'E1.ntrUc;:kun.s•. p. St5 (~uthor's tttl)lbtio11). Zcllc.r, ' Entruckung', p. 515. Acootding to Zelk.c. sc-holaahip bas mor~ or ~s
overlooked this pMibiliry, though offhand reference& can be found in W.G. XUmmeL. V,heissung unJ Erfulltmg: Unkrsudtung zur esc.btJtologischen Verlumdigung ]eru (ATANT, 6; Basel: Hc:inric;b Majec. lad c:dn. 1953), p. 71; E. Gti8et, D~ Nabmv.mtmg }~u. (SBS, 61; Sruttgan: KathoJi!ICbe Bibtlwttk, 197lJ, p. llO. lntc:rtstingly~ Harnack thought •skeptic$' c;ould arrive~ ~ •absurdities" such t$ the view chat,. given its Jade of paMion ma~rial, •from Q wr can on.Jy eoncludt rhat jesus s uddenly VU'Iith.td in a mort or ltss mysterious war• (Harnack, Saying~ of)eltlS, pp. 2JJ..j 4 n. 1). U. Z dkl; 'EotrUckung', pp. SIS- 16. 89. Zelle; 'WtrGckung', pp. 516--17; tee G. H•ufe, 'Eouilek""3 uod '*'h.1tolog;,cht Funktion im Spicjudcntum', ZRGG 13 (1961), pp. 10$-13. 90. Zdl<; 'Erurikkung', p. 517. 91. Zdkc. 'Entruckung'. p. 518. See also Zeller. 'Jesus, Q und die Zukw:Ut lsraels', io
Past-Mortem Vindication of jesus in th• Sayings Gospel Q
44
circumsrances. But it is denied that such persons met their end."' Second, aS-sumption fits well with the dtuteronomistic:: understanding of histOry, evident in Q !3.34's emphasis on the violent fa te of the prophet$: the Enochic Animal A(JQcalypse conneCted attempts on Elijah's life and his assumption (1 En. 89.51·52; cf I Kg,s 19.14; 2 Kgs 2.1·18)!2 Concerning the origin of the saying, Zeller propo$«{ that while jesus himself may have understood his own rejection deuteronomistica!Jy, and thus could have spoken Q 13.3435a during his fi nal days in Jerusalem, verse 35b is probably a post·E.a•rer addition. The analogy Zeller found in I En. 71.14 led him to conclude that ' the followers of jesus 6rsr stressed the eschacologicaf significance of their master, snatched away from them by his death, in this way. At least Q 13.35b must be a Christian e:xpa1tsion. 193 Although the conclusion fits ve.ty well with the rest of the saying, the reference to Jesus' assumption could only have arisen 'after Easter'."* Zeller argued t hat the language of 'Easter' is appropriate, even chou.gh rhe Q tradent.s did not expr~ss their conviction that God had vindicated Jesus in terms of 'resurrec-tion!~ because they did take bis proclamation again to lsraei.'S He a lso observed that a lthough 'resurreccion' and •assumption' are religion.sgescbicht/iche different expreS$ions of a hope in the overcoming of death. they do cend ro converge espec-ially in instances of po.c;t•tnortem assumption." Yet Zeller thought that Q 13.34 ·35 bypassed the death of Jesus by focus-ing on his 'assumption', and thus does not offer a dir«:t answer to the problem of Jesus' death. He did point out rhat assumption and resurrection differ sig_nificandy in relation ro escha.rofogical function: ' Resurrection however is not dearly connected w ith a future eschatological fu nction; it was not even originally coupled with the Son of man expectation. Something more like as!iumption probably pred
A. Lindemann (ed.)~ T~ Sayings Sour~~ Q and the H•'s.tOfiCdl jtSu$, pp. J.Sl~9 (J$7-S8): p.~.raphrase: "'Thus you will «nainly oo' $oCe me any more"' - the death of Jesus, concea.~d 21 an 2$SUtnption, ~s :a fact for the Q-people- "'thus you will ceminly have to .acknowledge me as the returning one•. The annou~emcnt of disastt:r thus was in no way ttluiviud by ~ns of tbe "'unril" d~I.J$t· (JiiJ!hor'f; mndarion). 92. Zdler, 'Entrik.ku.ng', p. S18. 93. ZeJJer. 'E:nttOclcung•, p. 519. 94. Ze!Jer devoted most of this essay to solving interpretative problems ol Q 11.29· 32, the 'Sign o( Jonah' S3ying (Ztll«, ' Entrlkktmg", pp. 519-27): the '!lign of j on3h' i$ 3 realistic_ futu:rt ~Sign. consisting in 1h.e Son o( mao himself, one which signik:J legitil'l:l.1tion for jn~.H and judgmmt for •chis evil gt'ocration' (pp. 52.0--21). 95. Here ZtiLer is &imil3t co TOdt, Son of M4n, p. 2SO.
'1 may
96. 97. 98.
Ztlle11'BntrUekuog•, p. S28. U llec, 'EnuUckung', p. S29. Steck~ tsra~l; Uhrmann, R.~d4ltion~ s« also Jacobson, Pint
Gospel~
and
Q 13.34-35: Survey of Research
45
Q 13.34-35 and the Sequmu of Q, Again ln his 1996 essay 'Building Blocks in the Social History of Q', Robinson took issue with Mack's trcatnv:nt of three key deuteronomistic texts iQ 6.23c; 11.49-51; 13.34-35), which e
13.34-35 from 11.49-51: 'the people of Q used the myth of wisdom's envoys ro express the horror of the war (Q 11.49-51], then che myth of wisdom's quest for a home to express sorrow in its ahermath (Q 13.34-35J•,iOO Robinson himself considers rhat rhe rwo sayings or-iginally formed a unit: they form •one of the be:ner instances- in Q o f <1 continuous train of rhoughr, rathe.r chan of disconnec.re.d sayings' .101Thus, Luke's pfacernenl of the t.amenr is redactional: he has moved che saying our of a context it would nor fir {the meat in the Pharisee's house, lk. 11..17, 53) tO tbe nar-r;tcive tr;tvelogue in ch. 13 (sec Lk. 13.22, 31-33). 102 Bur for evidence that Matthew's placement follows the Q order, Robinson goes back ro 2 Chron. 24.19-23, a 'classic text' for the deureronomistic view and t he text behind bofh Q 11.49-51 ;.1nd 13.34-35.101 That text describes che murder of the propher Zechariah ! LXX: Auri<Js), who was sconed in the temple; Robinson notes sevcr.tl parallels berween 2 Chton. 24.19-23 and the rwo Q s:a)·ings.' 04 lrl. Robirl50Jl'S view, Matthew apparently missed the allusions to 2 Chronicles, and identified Zechariah in Q ll.S l with the son of Barachiah (Ze.ch. l.1 ). U Matthew missed this conncctiont 'one cannor then :Jssume he secondarily broughc together the two parts of the section dependent on 2 Chron. 24.19-2.3 ... ,
Kloppenborg. fomuJtion. 99. Robimoo. 'Building 81oc.ks', p. 100; 5«- M~ck, Lou Gospel, pp. 83, 93, 98. 100. Mack, Lost Cosptl, p. 175. A post-war seaing for the 6:n.tl rcdactton of Q, including Q 13.34· 35, has also b«n argued by M. Myilykoskit 'The Social History of Q at1d thejewi$h W'a r', in R. Uro (ed.), Symbols 1md Strato, pp. 146-99 {197-99). 101. Robinson, 'Building Blocks', p. 102. 102. RobirUOn, 'Building Block$', pp. J0.)...04. ln f:u:.t, sintt: Robinson believes Luke bas also rc..()rdered the Woes, the Lukao rcdac.tH>n is responsible.for tbe two halves of what be ealb the ' Wisdom collection' (that is, Q ll.49-.Sl • 13.34-35) occurring in L1.1kc after rdcrene<s ro murd=d prophcts (Lk. 1t.47-48JQ] and 13.31-ll lLkSJ). 10.). Robinson, 'BuiJdi.ng BlQ.cb', pp. 104-06. Ste a l$0 Robift$0n, 'Sequence of Q', 1'1'· 255- 59. 104. ln ordtr to apl2in dK> non-septuagintal tumc. Zechariah. Robinson suggests dlat ae-gcric.al work irJ the Q red.actioo worked from otha uxrual tndirioos tha.n jus-t the Septuagint. and be dtes Q 7.27 as an example of tht: same phenomenon. Robinson. 'lluikling Block.', p. 106. 105. Robinsont 'Buikting Blocks', p. 106.
46
Po$t-Mortem Vindicalion of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
if they had in fact been separated in Q. Matthew here has simply followed
the Q ordec. ~ 105 While Robinson's argument for the allusions to 2 Chronidt$ in the tv.·o Q sayings is compelling, his conclusion does nor follow dlrecdy from the evidence he assembles. For even ap3rt from rhe supposed relationship to 2 ChtonH:les. the Wisdom saying and rhe- jerusalem Lament have enough features in common co suggest to Matthew a secondary joining. The origina1lty of the Matthaean order would have to be established on othor grounds."'
Implications This survey has uncovered several fundamental issues whose closer aoalysis wiU be imp<>nant t O an underuanding of jesus• posr~mortem vindication in Q. These include the origin of the Jerusalem Lament, especially v. 3Sb, the saying's position in Q, and its relationship to its literacy and theological contexts in Q. The most importam is-sues, however, concern Zeller's insight th~t Q 13.35b refers to jesus' assumption as correlated to his return ~s the Son of man. Given the dlffi<;ulties scholars have had in making sense of ''· 35b - for insranc~ note the attemptS to align this verse to the Wisdom myth - a reference to the assumption of jesus makes the best sense of the disappearance-reappearance prediction. A few scholars have taken up Zeller's observation that Q i3.3Sb refers tO Jesus' assurnption. 10~ John Noll-and, for instance, thinks that Zeller was ' probably right to appeal to Jewish traditions of figures translated to heaven in pn!'paration for a. future role ... Jesus will bt: sn~tched away (through death in his case) to heaven until it is time for his eschatological role.H!!s Risco Uro wrote that 'such parallels fas Zeller suggests! may be helpful fo r the understanding of what kind of exaltation traditions Q may presuppose.' 1~ Uro also thinks that Jesus' withdrawal in Q 13.35b has affinities with the 'absent lord' theology evident in the Markan empty tomb narrative {16.1·8}, an idea that will be explored in this book. 11 Kloppenbotg likewise sees a connection
°
106. Stt' also Robinson, ·~qutntt o( Q', pp. 2SJ-SS , in which he revie:ws 20d a5ilt$loe$ pre\·ious $Cbol~t$hip on the pla(e!Uent of the Lament in Q, and offers suggestjom concerning cht rt:dactional history o( rhe Lat'Ot:nt togetbt:r with the whole Woes con:apltx. 107. Edwuds earlier enten..-ioed the p0$Sibility ·that either resummon or assumption •Jro tO tbt: christologicaJ cognition Oil wtUch is rhc foundation of che Qcommunity', but did no.r d;tri6y bow or on wlut basis bt c:otui.d ertd 'a.uumption' u ~o altern~~ti,.e viodicarjon !ICCna.Cio (Sip ofJonah. p. 84 and n. 1St. 108. J- Nollaod, U.l • 9,21-IB,J< (WBC, JSB; D•llu, Wo..d, 1'93), p. 742. 109. Uro, 'Apog lypci~t Symbolism', p. lll n. 127. 110. R. Oro, 'J«s.u.s-lli.ke j11 yl6snousemus', in ]~f.IIIJ·Iiilt ..ust~ ltristi"~~JkOitlt (H.binkJ, Yliopistopaioo, 1995), pp. 93-111 ( 110-11). An Eoglisb aanslariooohhls ""'Y (' The jews Mo'f'tmrot and tbt: Resurrection' I wu prepaud for mt by Harutu Aalto, with corttetioas by Riuo Uro. 111. 'To underttand Q ll.JSb on the an.logy of tbeK aSIW'Option texts wggest:s that
Q 13.34·35: Survey of Restarch
47
between anumption and jesus' eschacological function in ~suggesting that ' this accounts for the fact that Q accords jesus' death no special salvilic s-ignificance, but jumps immediately ro jesus' return as the Son of man'. 111 On a number of points furt~er efforts with assumption in Q will be: fruitful. One point has to do with the purpose ZeJier suggested for assumption in Q . ln Ztller's view, resurrection compensates for t.he proble-m of martyrdom, bur assumption has in mind the (eschatological) completion of the ministry, cut short by untimdy death, of a righteous person now exalted. Thus, argued Zeller, assumpdon in Q 13.35 ( I) explains Jesus' exaltation, which (Zeller clailned) the resurrection motif was unable to do, and (2) legitimates the continuation of jesus' mission jn his absence.•u But as shown in the previous chapter, Q 13.34·35, read with 11.49·5land the polemic against 'this generation', hines deuteronomistica1ly at je$us• rejection and death. Thus jes-us' death as a prophet and his exaltation through. assumption come together in Q 13.34-35. Zeller argued that the Lament bypasses a specific reference to jesus' death., because assumprjon was usually considered to be a divine rescue from death. Is Zeller correct? If not, tht-n what is the re-lationship betw«n the Lamenr•s focus on the rejection of jesus and irs interest in assumption/ exaltation and Parousia? The following chapter, a survey of assumption in Gracco-Roman and jewish and Christian literature, will explore in pan whe-ther assumption can be used as an expression of divine intervention on bc:half of people whose death was known- and thus whether it is appropriate to see in Q 13.34· 35 a strategy of post-mQrt..,. vindication. Zeller's essay also raises agaj n the problem of Q and resurrection, or at least 'Easter'. Zeller would not say that Q developed in isolation from circles that knew of the appearance traditions (as in 1 Cor. 15.3·7): 'the b..sis in the text for speculations such as these is quite slender' .m He did imply, because ' twelve' is used in Q 22.30, that the Q group may have known the appearance traditions (in which Peter and the Twelve 6gure prominently), 114 and suggested thar the use of assumption language in Q t3.3Sb could only have ari,cn 'afttr Eutcr'.us However, if Q (in its final form) bears witness to a belief in Jesus' pos-t-mortem rescue, vindication and exaltation, rhjs does not require that Q presupposed a rtsurreaion kerygma. On the contrary, it seems that Q's literary (and theological) interests lay e1sewhere. It must be stressed that what convictions the group had about Jesus· vindication c.ome to literary expression in terms of assumption,
the Q propk may b~ve r~ardcd Jesus' death all the death of a just man or a prophet whom God bad usu.mtd, ptnding some furutt ttdu1ologkal function' (Kioppcnborg, Eu4wting Q, p. 378; d . Hunado. L«d I~su1 Clwilt, pp. 236-Jn. See also Kirk, CQmposition, pp. 31 4-IS. 112. Zeller, 'Enulkkung•, pp. 528- 29. 113. ZeUer, ':Entri.i<:kung\ p• .Sl8. 114. Zel~r, 'Eotrlklwng•, p. 528.
tt$. Zeller, 'Entri.iekung.. p • .S19.
48
Post-Mort€m VindicatU>n of jesus in tht Sayings Gospel Q
not resurrc:<.:tlon. Thus an an~a to bt explored is che connection between assumption and Q's view of jtsus' ongoing presence or existence. Cenainly, if Q 13.34-35, or a1 least v. 35b, came into the document at a late stage in its composi!ionaJ history, it may be thar the dea1h of Jesus (or his post-monem vindication or exaltation) was not a pres.sing problem for th~ Q community
from its beginning. A late redactional addition can signal a fundamental shift - or ~chaps meuly a compos1tionally later ex-pression of an earlier view.
Either way, an insight into this liccrary strategy of vindication can elucidate other aspects of the Sayings Gospel Q.
Chapter 3
AsSUMPTION IN ANTIQUITY Tht- idea of human ~iogs journeying &om earth to otherworldly realms was pracrically ubiquitous in the ancient world, and as a result has been the: subject of great scholarly interest. t According to Alan Segal, rwo rypes of transmundane journey were described in the Hellenistic world, anabasis and katabasis, each a forma l transformation of the other. ln the first an eanhly
person r:ravc1s to heaven, and in the second, a hc:-avenly
figu~;e
descends tO
earth.1 In eithe-r case the purpose, generally, is a mediation of some kind.J Many cypes of heavenly journey may be described under the heading of anabasis, or otscent., and thC$e must be carefully djstinguisbed. One panicu· larly helpful attempt to categorize the different rypes of ascent is found in ~rhard Lohfink's study of the Lukan ascension na.rr;~tivcs~ Die Himmelfahrt ]esu (1971).• What Lohfink and others call the 'heavenly journey' ('Himmdsreise' or ' Himmelfahrt') was clearly differentiated in the ancient literary sources, which describe both temporary heavenly journeys (these may be designated as •ascents') and ones which conduded t he individual's earthly life. Some temporary journeys or ascenrs are depicted as ecstatic or mys6cal experiences, since the individual's soul or spirit makes the journey, or else it takes
1. See W. Bousset, 'Die Hir:nmehreise dec Setle', ARW 4 U9Cll. pp. 136--69, 228- 73; G. Lobfink. 0~ Hi.mmel(3hN )esu: Unkrst4h~~~tgen V~ den HJmtMl{ahrtJ· .,nJ &hobungst~.xun bei LuJtos (SANT, 26; Munich: J
F..nvUOOltl(:ru:', ANAW23.2 (1980),
pp. 1333-94; M. Ot:an·Otting, HNttenly joumeys: A SJ,Jy of tM Moa( in f-ltl!nlistic
Li""•'"" Oudenrwn und Umw.l~ 8: Fnnlciutt; New YOlk: Petct Lang, 1984); M. Himmcl£ar-b, Ascent to Htavm in jewish and Christi4.n ApocolypSttS (Oxford; New Yorlc: Oxford University Ptes:s, 1993}. Brief $u.tVeys ouy ~bo be found in J.D. Taboc. Tbinf$ Um~tkrable: Paul's Auertt to ll~ven in Its Gr~ ·R.Offlan. jwdAA:. attd Early ChriuUut Contats (Srud.its in judaism; l..anlwn, MD: Uni\'eniry Press of Amui.ea, 1986J; A. W. Zwiep, T1H Asun1km oft~ Mnfiah in Lu)usn Christology (NovTSup, 87; ltidcn: Brill, 1997). 2. Stg;ol, 'H.. vtnlr pp. 1337-40. 3. C£. O.J , Halperin. 'Ascension oc lov.uion: lmplkatiom of the Heavenly JouulC'y
}<Wish
Alt..,,.,
in Ancient judaism'. R.t/18 (1988•, pp. 47-67. 4. loblink, Himmelf.:Jhrt, pp. 32-79.
50
Post-Mortem VindiciJtion of jesus in tile Sayings Gospel Q
place in the. context of a d.ream.J Other as.centS were thought of as bodily experiences.' When Paul describes an ascent (probably his own) tO bcaven,. he professes ignorance of the mode of the journey (2 Cor. 12.2-3), but emphasizes that it happened as a n act of divine not human iniciative.7 Other heavenly journeys concluded the ea n hly life of the individual. This work is particularly concerned with 'assumption' (Lohfink: 'EntrUcku.n g'), rhe 6nalt bodily removal of a human person from earth into heaven, usually
while still alive.• As will be seen below, assumption was described in ster~ typical language, and was stereOtypicaUy associated with certain idtas, so that a$$umption nartar.ives were fo rmally distinctive. Yet rhe idea and its literary expressions had oome 6exibility. While assumption normally would signal the end of a human being's eanhly life, some sources use assumption language to des,ribe the removal from earth to hca ven of a heavenly figure at (or as) the conclusion of an appearance/ or the sudden 'translation' of a human being from one place to another (as in Acts 8.39). Luke-ACtS and Rev. 1!.7-13 describe the assumption of individuals who died but experienced resurrection. 1() There was also some flexibiliry, it will be seen, on whether assumption always necessarily signi6ed an escape from death. Both Loh6nk and A.W. Zwiep observed that •assumption~ i$ not ruled out in Gracco-Roman sources by the death of the individual, but concluded the opposite for Jewish texts..11 In contrast, this $UTVcy will conclude that the literary evidence requires
5. Lohfinl<, H""""lf•hn, pp. 32-34. 6. S.., e.g., T.llbf: (B) 7. 19-S.J. 7. Manh.a Him.melfarb found this ro ~ ch.auc,erisric of mo•r of the .as«nl$ dcsailx-d in jewish and Christian litc:rarure: M. H.immdfarb, '1"he Pracrice of Atc:ent in rbe- Ancient Med it~":trancao Wotid', in j ,J. Collins a:od M. fishba~ (C'ds.). D"th. &s~asy, llnd Oth~ Worldly )ou~ (Albany, NY: St:ate Univmiry of New York Preu, 1995). pp. 121-37 (128-33). ~iptions of teduUquet for iniri:acins #$Cent .are not wknown ~ Hi'frltft.el{ahrt, p. l3, cites the so-called ' Mith.ru Liturgy' , P.Puis 574) but appnt ootr rardy in ancient soura:.t; .aeco«fing to Hi.m.mel£arb the actions of chc individual before a.a a.$C.C:Jlt do nor initiate it, but only pre~re the individual ro receive the experience (Himmel&rb, 'Pracritt of Ascent', pp. 130-32t. 8. l.ohMk, Himmn, p. 36 •nd n.!). S.. •i>o Schm;tt, F.nJri
Assumption in Antiquity
Sl
more flexibility on this poin~ and that sufficient warrant exists in bmh GraecoRoman and J<wi•h sources for thinking that assumption language in Q 13.35 can be an answer t'O the problem of jesus' post-mortem vindication. To be distinguished from assumption is the •as~ent of the soul' (Loh..fink: 'Aufnahme der Seele'), according to which the soul asc.ends o ut of the body at the time of death, whether because of itS own immortality, u or with the help of an int~ediary. 13 Loh.6 nk noced that in jewish literature this idea bas its own narrative form. 14 Normally, 'the ascent of the soul' was consider~d a reward for a virtuous life, and as such was a spiritua1i.zed 'assumption' reserved for special cases. 11 This idea, as will be seen below, is at the root of a tradition in Hellenistic consolation literature which applied certain terms often associated with assumption to people who had died early but who we-re not believed to have been taken bodily imo the divine realm." T ho ugh t hey both are 'embodied' forms of post-mortem existence, assumption and resurrection are also distinct from one another, both formally and rerminologically, in tht ancient sources. George Nickcl$burg defines resurrection as cthe eschatologit$1~ct by which God the judge raises the d~.ad in order ro recompense rhtm for their deeds', in that 'resurrection and its equjvalents function variously as recompense for the lack of divine justice in chis world, as r~ward and punishment for one's deeds., o r, in special cases, to exalt and glorify che pe-rsecuted leaders of the community' ." Nickclsburg has shown thar early Jewish thought, though far from consis~t 12. Loh6nk cite$ ctG 2. 3398 .. W. Peek. Criu.bischt- Grabg~dichu: Grilchjsch und C>-etd.seh (Schriftcn und QucUm dcr Altm Welt, 7; Berlin: Akademie-Vc:rlag. 1960). no. 391. 'Ibis epitaph read' in part: 'My soul Bees (rom my bean i-nro the ether Bke ,_ breu.e ... :tnd u 1 dt:tw neat tbt hOUk of thr blt'$.std gods ~oeivcs me, snd 1 bt,hold in the bt"avenly dwdllngs the I~ of Dawn ..: <'iAJX'l f1 it 1Cpo:6iqs 6po"' ts oi&tpov tiQAos cxVpn ... ~r:al ~t au:;..,IJOkO:pt.)v ~eaTixu ~OS' &oaov iiwTa, oOpaviots n ~otat ~f II'(&) +cios' Hptytvt:ins, JL 4,6). Stt Bow.sct, ·o~ HimmrJsreise der SttJe', p. 136. IJ. See, for ituk (ed.~ RllmiJtr K4isn*>Je (Weee der FOt$Chuns. 372; D>nnmdo w,..n..clunlkht Budtplltchait, 1978), pp. 82-121. For tbe view that tbt soul of the cmperot ascended and wu del5~~ OvM::I, M~tam. l S.l24J..12H UuliU¥ Cac:Ur); Cas11ius Dio 56.42 (Al.I8U-iru.s>, 75.4--5 (Pettinut; ~todUn 4.2 (Septimus Severu\); see also &gal, ' Heavenly Ascent.. pp. 1348--49: S.G. ~rtn~ck, Art an.d CntmOII)' in lAir Arfliquily (Betkelt:y, Ck University of California Press, 1981 ), pp. JOl-OS; and S.. R.F. Prioe. ' From Noble F'unenl$ ro Divinr Cult~ The C:omccration of Roman Emperors', inS. Price 2nd D. CaMadint: (cds.), Aitu.2ls of Ao')ltdty: P~ and Cnmtemial in TradiriCmlll Soc.id~SlP~$t- and Ptt$ent Publication&; Ounbri.Jseo Cambridg,:. Univeniry h"s, 1987~ pp. 56-105 (76). I?, G.W.f. Ndd:sbw:g. •Res-urrec:t:ioru Early Judaj$0'1 .and Chri.s1i~n ity', ABD 5, pp. 68....91 (684).
52
Post-Momm Vindi<~~tio• of ftsus in the Sayings Gospel Q
in jr:s understanding of resurrection, tended to associate a future c:schatological resunecrion with the vindication of the righreous. 11 Somedmes that vindication is individual, even when it occurs in the context of a universal judgment, but resurrection itself was a corporate idea. 11 In certain texts, the precise f3te of the body is not always dearly understood in terms of its
cecooscitudon and/or revivi6.carion.20 In Q, thi• book will argue, !he problem of Jesus' posr-mottem vindication is given a literary answer with the language and associated ideas of assumption, an answer different from those provided by resurrection rheology in mher texts. The differences between assumption and resurrection, as tbey apply
to the case of jesus, may be spelled o ut in tentative fashion htre, though this is to anticip.art somewhat the. resulrs of this chapter. Assumption and resurrection have different views of the fare of tbe body and differenr lheological associations. Assumptjon involves the disappearance of rhe body. pre- or post•mortem, although (as argued below) the language of assu.mprion was also used euphemistically for someone: who had died.21 Resurrection involves an appearance of rhe resurr=d person, rather tbon the disappearance of the body, whether or not the body is rhought of as beiog reconstituted or revived.11 Assumption, as will be scc::n, is associatc:d typicaHy with divine favour and starus elevation, and consistendy in Jewish thought with special eschatological functi<)n. With resurrtction. such ideas- particularly exaltation - are sometimes present, but often with special exegetical rariona1e.2J Luke l8. G.W.£. N"tektlsburg. RC'$Urreajon. Immomlity4tld Eserrwl Li/e in lnt~ jud4ism (H:a.rvatd Theologkal -Swdies, 26; Cambridge, MA: Harv:trd Univtrsity Pte$$, 1972). 19. Nicke:lsbut g. Re$urTtaion, lmmortaliry 12nd Et
physK-al rrs.u.rrec.tion); see Cavallin, Life Aft.n Dur.h, pp. 197-99. Many have argu~ thac simil.uly d isp3t:~ te views of bodily fate ll'lay be found in materials on the rtsw'recrioo of Jesus: see, for examplr., Robinso~ 'JC'$.us - From Easttr', pp. 7-17; A.Y. CoiJins, iln Beginning of lbe Gli.s: Fortrt'$~ 1992), pp. lll-27, 14}-46.
21 . ~ below on t~ Righteous Ooe in Wi•. 2,....$ and ics $imibrlt ies ro Heltcnistie r;onsola tton lit~.n ru.r~.Jn &Ueb USt$ the body does oot d.isappcar. bur &t:lad~rd :.uumpti<m terminology - paniculariy rsprure (0pncl(w -a.nd cognateS) or uking up (iwa).a.~YC.)) language - dOC5 OQ;W'. 22. Srt' 1 Cot. 1 5.5..8 and ~ a pp<-::tt:I.D« oa.ttatiYet in ~ftlwA·, l uke1 and j ohl), •nd G01. Pet. 10. to Mi.rk 16.1 ~8. the disappear3n« of j esus' body is inccrptctc::d by Mark a.s resulting from tbt' tC'Sutrcccion. 23. Compa"• (ot ins~noe, Rom. 1.3·4 (which associates }c:$us' rcsu.rrec;rlon with bis cxahation ss Son of God) with Rom. 8.34 and Acts 2.31·36 (which add ex" licit r.uion:tlt o( session or eruhtonemmt tbeoklgy, Nsed on h31m 2). Nickelsburg u)'J tha( die res.ur· reetion 'f.acilitnes Jesus' exaharioo as lord and Judge' f'Re;sunoccion', p. 688).
me
Assumption in Antiquit)'
53
distinguished between re-surre<:tion and assumption, a pparently ch_ink.ing rhar they had different functions in relation to jesus, though obviously nor concluding that they are at odds with each ocher.~ These are good grounds for maincaining a formal disrincrion between tbese rwo idcas.25
Assumption in Graeco-Roman Literature This survey begins with a s ummary of Lohfink's observations concerning terminology and motifs, 3nd takes 'he assumption of Romulus as a case study, for its many variants display most of me typical ideas in the Greek tradition. A special focus will be the instances of posc-monem assumption: for there seems less hesitation in the Graeco-Ron\an tradition than in tht jewish nadicion co apply the idea of assumption, normally a pre-mortem caregory, ro people who had died.
Loh6nk noted several characteristics of assu_mption narratives in Graeco· Roman lirerature:u 1. Assumption narratjves tend to focus not on the journey itself, but on its origin and destination: 'The person in questjon is taken away from the world of humaM and is assumed to the gods.'" 2. An assumption is 3.lways narrated from t he perspeCtive of an earthly observer,1 ' so that bodily disappearance is practically a sine qua non for assumption.~
24. See Lob.6nk, Himtml(aJm, p. 59; Zwic~ Asc.msioft, pp. 34-35. 2S. Some oommmtators d isoem :a blurring of g,tegorles brtw<en rcsurr«tioo and a.uumption, in both Christian and jcwi'\h J>Ourcts, e.g.., ~vaUin, f..J/~ Afur Dl.ath, pp. 2.()$..()6, who appr-.tl'l to haTe [a mind not rcJurrectioo p~r se but post·mortem prescrvtri<>o in a mort" gena-al sense. Cf. C.F. £vans, Ruuffulitm 11M rh~ Nnu Ustmnmt (SST, 2112; London: SCM, 1970), pp. 137-38; a180 J. Holleman, R~.twm~aion muJ PartxtJia; A Tr.:JdiJ;rr Hisrori(;(J/ Study of P(IUrs &dtatology in 1 Corinthi411S 15 (Novi:Sup, 84; Ldden: Blill, 1996), pp. 14~57. 20. Loh6nk, Himmtl(.mt, pp. 37-41. 27. Lohfink, HimtMlfdbrt, p. 37 (author's translation; e:mpha.sis origina)). U. F.xetpdons include Ovid't deuiptioo ol Romulus' auumption,. whk:b cmphasius the duma in thtdivine rutm (Metam. 14.805·5 1; F~st. 2.41.S ~.S12), .11_nd Enoch's n2rration of his own assumpti-on (1 £n. 87.3-4; 1 Eno
Post-Mortem Vindication of }es11s in the Say;ngs G<»pel Q
54
3. This carrhly perspective means that the scene and the wirnesses (eirher human or otherwise) of a.ssumption.s receive- attention in assumption nanacives.JO 4. Assumption is a bodily removal, so assumption narratives emphasize disappearance and assumption traditions do not coexist with grave traditions.l1 5. A$.Sumption requires an unusual divine intervention. which is expre58ed through either the use of the passive voice or the explicit naming of rhe god.32 6. In Graeco-Roman literaru.re assumption is an exclusive process, reponed only of special individuals.Jl One detail may be added to Loh.fink's sixth observation. Assumption appar· cody rould be seen as the occasion either of apotheosis or of the return of a divine bt-ing to the djvine. re.alm.J.4 According to Charles Talbert, assumption occurs frequently in literature about heroes or immortals, who according to legend were originally mortal but were transformed at the end of rbeic careu., usually through assumption., so that they received the same honours a$ the eternal deities. SJ •Assumpt~on at the conclusion of a person's life showed that in reality they were not human, but divine."36 The literature auats many examples of persons who contrived to effect rheir own bodily disappearance in order to ensure their post-mortem venuation as gods.» Lohhnk observed that 'disapptarance' language was the- most common way ro describe an assumption (0¢o:vl~c..l, citovl~opcn, &~vr\s yl~a1, and a~II'TO> yi)'liOIJQI), A second group of verbs includes 'raprure' language: aplr~O> ('the oldest Gre«k t
30.
Lobfink, Himmelfolm, pp. 38-39-
31. See "'iiO$UIU'Utl, Vir. ApoU. 8.30 {i.n which the aurbor ootea the lack of atay grave~ d. Vit. ApoU. 8.l9 for a tradition about Apolloniw' assumption. 32- loblink. Himme/fab.,, p. ~. 33. loh.6nk:. Himmtlfllhnt pp. 40-41; see :aJso M.C. Parsons, The DspMrur~ of]ts.uJ in Luke-Ads: The A.sunsi011 Narrarivu in Contut (JSNTSup. 21; Sbeffidd: JSOT Pres.s, 1987), pp. 136·38. J.4. For Romufw' assumption as proof of ckification, ste Plut:ucb, R.orn. 27; as proof of his divinity, .s.tt. Dion. Hal., Ant. rom. 2.56.2~ 6; 2.63.4. JS. C.H. Talbert. "The Concept of Immortals in Meditert'&nem. Antiquity', ]BL 94 (19?5), pp. 419-36 (422-23\. 36. Lohfinl<, Himmtl{ob. 7.27-JIAI=nder). Otbt:rs oonttivt
Assumption in Antiquit)•
ss
regularity of apo, 6, and 8101' yiylqJac).l~
Lohfink also nored't besides apotheosis, severaJ other motifi and narrative elements common in Graeco-Roman assumption stories.~ Some relate to the environment of the ~ssumptioo (mountains and funeral pyres) or accompa· nying phenomena (lightning, thunder, voices from heaven), while others deal more direcdy with the means whereby the person is taken away (windstoons, chariots, eagles, or clouds, which sometimes c:onvcy the person to heaven but often serve to obscure the assumption from view). One fina l important motif is confirmation: the assumption can be con6rmed either through an unsuccessful search after the disappearance,41 or through a subsequent epiphany (either of t he person who wa.s assumed or of some other heavenly figure). Some contemporary sources display a negative view of aS-sumption. Lucian of Samosata satirized the idea of funeral pyre assumption in de Morte Peregrini rhe same way Seneca sar.iriz.ed emperor apotheosis in
Apolocyntotis." According to Plutarch,
2. Two Representative Examples: Romulus and Xisoutbros Lohfiok began with the assumption of Romulus, because it is described in ma.ny sources.w. The earliest mentions of che assumption of Romulus arc: found in Ennius (2nd c. BCE) and Cicero (106-43 tiCf.)." Mosr au
Zwiep. ~nskm, p. 39 and n. 1. lob.6nlc, 1-firnttUI{ahrt, pp. 42-49.
41.
So ;alw
42. 43. 4-4.
Lohlink, Himmdf.,., p. SO.
39.
8Kk«mJ~on. 'Du
kert' Gtab', p. 289.
Bol~ '""'' o.{.., of Duth, p. U2.
Bolt,/""'' o.{tm of Dt41h, pp U>-el.
45. Lot.linlc, Hi.,..../{.,., p. 49. 46. Loh6nk, Himmel{t~hrt, pp. 32-34; see al.SoO Pcue, 'Invisibility', p. ts: 'Tht
Post-Mortem Vindication of jest<• in lh• Saying• Gospel Q
56
skepdcal about the legendary r~ports, but as Lohfink righdy insisted, even skeptic,af or satltical assumption reports US<e standard form and terminology, a.lrhougb r~tionaliting or spiritualizing explanations are often given.•• The Language used for the assumption of Romulus emphasi2es sudden disappearance. Greek authors (Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicamassus) favour 04lavi~c..>. cl4>aufts ylyvo~cu, and C¢~o:uiOIJ0S'; and Ovid ust:s evan~uo.•' Along similar lines, Plutarch says that no part of his body or his garments could be seen (oon ~ipo; <.04>9n oc.O~cxTo; oVT' .k£1-¥avov io&ijTo; (Rom. 27.5); Livy repons that Romulus was no longer on r.he earrh ('nee deinde in tertis Romulus fuit'), and that his duone was empty ( 1.16.1 -2). Assumption o r translation language a lso occurs (c:Xvaptr
l.ohfink, Himm
49, Se-e Plutarch, Rom. 27-28, Num. 2.1-3, and Dion. Hal., Ant. rom. 2.56, 2.63; Ovid, hut. 2.509. SO. civopw6.tt.:~ (Oion. Hal, Ant. rom. 1.56.2; Plutarch, Rom. 27.7); ciw~ipw (Pi uuarch~ Num. 2.3): utTo:MOoow (Plutarch. Rom. 1.7.S); r11pW (Livy, 1.16.2); Jollo (Ennius, Ann. 1..541·55; Ovid, Mn4tr!. 8.814; Fast. 2.487; Cicero, R~sp. 1. 16); tN{no (Ovid, M~t~~m. 8.824). Sl. Compare Plutarch, Rom. 27.5·6; Num. 2.1-2; Dion. H:af.. Ant. rom. 2.56.1; Livr. 1.16.1. SZ. CkC'ro, R~sp. J.l6; Livy, 1.16.1; Ovid, M~ttmt. 14.816-17; Fmt. 1.493-95; Dion. H~J.. Ant. rom. 2.56, 2.63; Pl-uurch, Rom. 11·28; Num. 2.1-3. $3. Llvy, 1.16.-4; Dioo. HaL, Ant. rom. 2.56.3----S; Plutarch, Rom. 27.5; Num. 2.2. S
Assumption in Antiquity
57
and then ascend after their conversation.S7 In tbe epiphany, Romulus is dressed in full battle regalia and reveals that his name is Quirinus, and thar he is returning to the gods.st The idea found in some source$, that the assumption of Romulus was his return to the divine realm (and not his apotheosis), appears co ha,•e originated with Ennius: ~Romulus in caelo cum dis geojU~Iibus acuom degit.'5' The idea comes to expression in various ways. Dionysius has Romulus say that his &.lttwv is taking him to the gods, now that his mortal life has ended.60 Another view is found in Ovid: Jupiter makts good on his promise that one of the twins would be exalted t O the divine c~lm.41 So Gradivus dC$Cends in his chariot, and Romulus is caught up from the-earth. On the way, his mortal body dissolves.n Ovid also des<:ribes rhe delfication of Hersilia, wife of Romulus.0 Another illustrative ex.ample is the Hellenistic version of the Meso-potamian flood tale. Berossos describes how [he hero, here called Xisouthros,~ is taken away by the gods. Wheo he uw tNt th~ boot had ruo ;gro,md On; certain mountain. Xisouth.ro~>got out, with h.is wi.ft and daughter aod with tbt helmsman, and he kissed the: ground and ded~ated an alur and s3Cri6ced to lht g;od$. Then he. together with chost who h2d distmbarkc-d wirh him, di!o3ppcared 1ytll(o6a• ~nCr Ti>v i~clVTCo>v TOO nXolou C:~a\11)). Tho!ioe who had rtmained on the boat and did not get out with Xi.southros the.n disembarked a.nd scar<=h«< for hjm, c.Uing out for him by Nme; but XisouthrM himsdl W3$ no looger seen by them {TO~P & ! ioou6pov o1.iTi:w IJiV eN TOtS' oU~e iTt Ocp&iivat •. Tbe-o a voice came from up in tbt aU, commanding that they should honour
the gods. For X;30ulhros b.ad g<~nt 10 dweU with tht god:s on a«
Livy, 1.16.6·7; Plutat
1.16.3. S9. 60. 61. 62. 63.
Ann.l.110·11; alsoA""'·l.J06.()9. A.nt. rom. 2.63.4. Ovid quotes. £nniw: MtU"'. 8.814; Ffi.Sl. 2-.<487; Ennius, A1UL 1..54-.SS. Mddm. 8.816·28. Me.ram. 8.829-St; probably dependent on Ennius, Alltt. 1.100. 64. The: Sumerian version olthe tak narnK the hero Z iu:sudra. Set S.N. Ku.mer (rraru.). 'Sumerian Myth.t ~nd Epic iales', ANET, pp. 37-59 (« t; soc also E.A. S~is« (U'.tns.), '1bc: £pic of Gilgame&b'. AN£T, pp. 12.--99 {9$). 65. Author's translation; C reek text from Synoellus, £doga Chrcmogrt~phlu S$. in F. jac:Qby (ed.t,DV Fragmna~ dtwgriubisthn. Historik" (Leiden: .&rill, 1950-1964), 3C.J. p. 380. 66.
This Ju t point is c.k:t.rer in rM Sumttian version of rbt tak: ' Anu {andt EnliJ c:berish
they bring down for bim' (ua.u. lttalll("r, ANET, p. -44).
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the S
58
3. Post-Mortem Assumptions ln Graeco~Roman literature, assumption need nor imply the circumvention of death. The disappearance of a dead person's body lrom a tomb or funeral pyre apparently could lead to the same condusions that would be drawn if the person had dis:.tppea~.d while alive. Lohlink stated that assumption from a funeral py~ 'obviously assumed the death of the person in question. Thus assumption does not only concern the living.'" The many venions of the end of Heraldes provide an illustration: the hero's apotheosis takes place from
his funeral pyre,'* and while some-rource$ speak about the disappearance of his mortal remains,'9 others take a rationalizing or spiritualizing approach.10 The details of the myth vary widely: the assumption of Herakles was not always described as bodily or posr~morrem.n Most importantly, these stories served tO justify (probably after the fact) the veneration of Herakles either as a hero or as a god.12 Lucian of Samosata s.atiriciu.s such stories in The Passing of Peregrinus. Proteus kindles his own pyre, then climbs up and engulfed in flames cannot be seen (Taura ,;,,,;,. <m]61)0£V is TO rrup, oU ~~· sr.>paTO Y' ... ). The narrator embellishes the account (for the sake of the foolish), concluding with a vision of a vulture, lampooning emperor apotheosis: 'and then a vulture, flying up out of the midst of the flames, went off ro heaven, sayil\g in human speech with a loud voice, "I am through wlth the arth; oo Olympus I fare•• (Peregr. 39)." Late; thinking of Julius Proculus in the Romulus stories, Lucian descr-ibes- a dignified~looking man claiming thBt he saw Proteus in white raiment.' • Despite lucian's satirical intent, this source illustrates that the 1trong association berween disappearance and deification in the popular imagination need not be hinden~d by the fotct that the assumed person bad died.
lohfink. Himmd(t~brt• p. 43. 68. Tht t1rlie~1 eviden~ i$ (ootid in Athenian vase-~imins datiqg to around 460 JCE: set' M.W. .Padilla, Tbe Myths of Heroldu in Anc~t Gruu: Survey 11nd Profik (Lanham, MD: Univt::nity Pre:M of America, 1998). p . 1$. 69. Sec. ApoUodorus, Bibl. 1.7.7; Diod. Sk., BWI. hist. 4.38·39 lin which Hetakles' 61.
friends can 6nd no borxs after the pyre is consumed h>· a lighmin.g bolt). 70. Stt Suvi~..¢, A.en. 3.402 (Heraldet c:oou-ived U) keep h il ttn)Jii_(U bidden); Ovid, M~ta"'· 9.2.66·?1 (sbcd as a make sbcd1 its slcin, hiunoru.l body was consumed- ;usr as h:apperw:d to Romulus, :tccording tO Ovid, Ml!tttm. 8.816·28 •. 71. In fWO depiCtions reponed by Pausanias, Hc:r.akk:s wu rescued &om dc-atb by Athena, who toOk him away 'o dwell with tbe gods (Paus., ~scr. 3.18.11; J.t9.St. 72. H.A. Shapiro :usues that ~ myrb o( Ht-nkk$' 2pot.heos.is on Mount Oeu w.._, toottivtd in order to e:xpliin wh practices, at the same location (6th~. liCE) and cliewbete. wbkh honoured HeraJdcs not as a hero but as a god: H..A. Shapiro, 'Hh6$ Tht01: The O.a.kl"'• Cl•"ical World 11 U983), pp. 7-18 (15- 17). S.. abo M. Nilsson, 'Ou F1ammentod des Hcnk.Lct aul dem Oite', ARW 22 •1922), pp. 31G..16. 73. 7-4.
Many Creek sourttS dtseribe instanCeS in which dead persons are trans· lacod bodily co ocherworldly abodes and co immomlity. Erwin Rohde noced -•nl inscancu from the Aithiopis: Memnon, who is kill..! by Achilles, is taken by his mocher (with Zeus's p<"rmission) to the ends of the canh where be is gran cod immortaliry. Lacer the body of Adtilles is taken from the funeral pyre by his mocher, presumably co a similar end." According co Dionysius of Halicamusus, the dioappearance of the body of Aeneas from the batdefield Jed to his veneration as a hero or cht:hontc dcjty. 7• As s.ccn above, Plutarch was not tympathetic to sud\ views, but he does relate several instances in which bodies were rtporred as disappearing, including 11 story about the disoppearance of the corpse of Aristeos of Prnconessus (Rom. 28.4; aiS
Alcmena from her funeral bier (Rom. 28.6).17 'The Ddficarion of Aninoe•;EKSEc.oots· Apolv011s, a fragmenc·3ry pt>em by Collimachus, desc.ribes a post-monem assumption. 7' The death of Arsino( II Philadelphos, sister and wife of Ptolemy lJ Phil• delphos, is dacod ac either 270 or 268 ICE," and the poem, inspired by the quecn's deolh, must have been wriuen soon after that. Th~ text is fragtnClltary. :and at impotUnt points it is unc.IHt. However, a ba$ic scenario cmcrgcs from the: D•~gtsil: ' Edtc.>Ots' Apon>oiJS· ~'1'1i• 6E aVTti• a"''Pmio8a• UwO TWv Au)CnoUpc.;,v KCII ~pOv Kai n. ~·vos cN"Tijs •a8t6p00eat rriX>s Tc\)'E~rropi.,. Deification of Arsinoi": he says that she was snatched up by the Dioscouroi and that her a ltar and sacred prednct were c.stablishtd near
the Emporium.10 15. E. Rohde. Psy<,br. Tht Cult o(So.US ond Ikli.f in lmmorulity Among th~ GruiJ (tnnt. W..8. Willis• London: Routk<J8~: &- Kcgan Pa.ul. 192j). pp. 6~$; he alto cheuimilar
mditioc:l• about Hyakinth.ottnd Atldepios (P.syGN, pp. 99-100). 76. Olon. Hal.. Rom. mrt. 1.64.4. Accordlna to Se:I'Yiw.. EMiuuayt dut both Aeneas and R.omulw. 'iWf"t r«korv.d with the: gods t•:secun<~um EM.ium, refuerur inter dcos cum AcOea': Srni-., A~. (, ,"n1). 17. Accotdma to tbr story given by AntOt\ift\U libmtt...._ Zai• onkra Hermes to nul Akmm&'l bod1 and to cab (inn11£Y)(fi• ) it ro tbr 1sJa ol dw alae.~~ sbr b«a!DC"
the W>k ol Jthld>mmrbus tAur. uo. M.um. 33.3)' F. Cdoria. n.. M.-r>bou< of l.ibn: New Yodc Rcurt.dge.
"''"'''*"" 1992); L C....,;p (..!.), ""'""""" l.ibro £dll1>riale CiulpiDo, 1962).
71. Tn• in R. PldH" In!.), ~ (2 vob; ~ Oxlonl u,;....;q P...., 11'4, &. 221 (pp. 1.211-Uk F. N",..;d. (=ru.), Tl>< p...., of c.ti........... (Oxfocd. Oxford On.iveniry Prcsa, 2001), pp. 113-27. n. s.. F. Cnybel<, o.. u/b<Jrin ~ .....lmd,..,. pr.U...rq.., , . - , d. chronolop b.llbciltiquo (Schwcizcriscl>c Beilli8< "" Altmum•wi_,.,haft, 20; Base~ Friedrich Reinhard~ 1990), pp. 103-12.. so. m.,.IO.IO,I'fcifle•C.~,p. t.ll8nr..... N1"'i
60
Post-Mortem Vindication oflesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Unfottunately, the poem itself doe5 not offer any more insight into the assuroprion of ArsinoC. The Di.egtsis uses a standard term for assumption {O.vapnO:~w), whith at leas-t indicates that the- poem was interpreted as describing an assumption; the poem itself almost ce-rtainly contained this teem, since it caJJs ArsinoC 'Rapt by the gods' {il cSahJootv bptrctylpa, l. 46}. The death of ArsinoC is also in view in the poem, which describes her smoking pyre (//. 40-41, 45-74) and her funeral, though the cexc is fragmentary ac chac point (//. 11-15). The fragmentary text is unclear whether or not a bodily assumption of the dud queen is intended. Only the ends of the following lines have s urvived: W~41a, cV ~~" O:onplavOrr> a~cx~av ricSrJ W1TTo~iuJa
1Tapieu ot~a•«<
I cinveis O~up~ol
) ~fa TOuTO ~·0: ir~nipa j l\aai41a cjlp
che scarry Wain ... past the: moon your stolen fsoull was s~eding ... lamentation keen ... a single voice and this ... 'our queen gone'. 11 The smoke from the pyre might indica~ chat Minoe's body has been burned (and thus was not raken by the Dioskouroi), but the Herakles legends show that a body could disappear from a pyre. Certainty is impossible, but assumption Language herr might connote soul ascent rather t-han bodily assumprion. 12 As already seen with the HerakJe~ myths, ir may be here rhar Callimachus composed the poem using assumption language in order ro justify the cult of Arsinoe after her death,'-' although as one of rbe 'sibling gods' (eEOI AllEA<Xll) together with Ptolemy U she was already given d ivine honours during her lifetime.$4 One of t he clearest examples in Creek literature of belief in post-monem 3SSumption is found in Chariton's novel Chaereas and Callirbo~ {dated to 81. Pfeiffer, l by name. ro' Apo1vbo:l JXtoiM1a ..,006a~ Trypani$ !cd. and tt'ill\$.), Callimachfl.l (LCL; Cambridge, MA! I larvard University Prns, 1958t, pp. 164-65. 32. Stc. also R.A. Hnurd. lmilgi7rtJJion of 11 Mon11rdry: StMdi~s m Ptolnnoic Propogd'ltda (Pbomix Supplementary Volume. 37; Torooro: Univcniry of Toronro P~s. 2000~ p. 114: •fht poet imagined ~r spirir being c::arried aw.1y by .Kastor Jnt.l P<1lh~x on the tvMing of her death•. 83. Sec G. HOibl, A Hhtory o(lh' Ptolm*4ic. E.mpirr (London; New Yorlc.: Routledge. 2001),pp. 101-04. 3<. See Harmd, Jmagm.lkm of• M....,cby, pp. 8~n.
Assumption in Antiquil)t
61
around the t urn of the era).u (n facr. the heroine is not really dead. Early ln the cale, the new husband Chaereas attacks his wife in a jealous rage, and with the wind knock
The grief stricken Chaereas vows to se-arch for his love over land and sea, even rising ro rhe sk_y lf necessary (~~:G-v lii5 cuhOv bva~ijucu T0v O:ipa &Jvc.;,~al}." He discovers, when the tomb robber is captured later, rhat Callirhoe is still alive (3.4). Although cbe reader knows that Cailirhoe is not dead, the reaction of Chaereas is telling. For, chinking he[ dead. he wonders whether s he has been assumed from the tomb. This •is::t text which prototypically determines how ... rhe disappearance of a body from a grave was interpreted reHgiousJy'. u Chaereas actua.IJy suggests two fairly different assumptioo scenarios. Hi$ first suggestion- that she has been taken by the gods - implies that he thinks Callirhoe w;~s also deified. Chaereas gives two ex--amples from the past: 'So did Dionysus once sreal Ariadne from Theseus and Zeus Semele from Act;~eon.' According tO B.P. Reardon, the usua1 stories of thest characters
85. G.P. Goold atg\.lef (or 2S BC£-$0 C£ on the b..-$1$ o( Charitoo•s oon-Attici:zlng Jwini: G.P. Goold (ed. and trans.), Clul.ritOft: as lttrc Grab', pp. 284-85, who thought Chariton wu inOuc:tk:ed by the 30'1"'"86. TraM. Goold, LCL. 87. Biclcermann sees a tension bcrwttn Chaercas• explanations of CaOitboc's dlsappeara.nc:c and hi$ immediate depart\lre tQ $Cat ch for her ('D~ 1eere Gr:.b', pp. 284-85). 88. S. lilborg2nd P. 0\att:lion Coo:na.J~sus· A~aU11K$S .md ~"'""u' m l..Mke 2-f (Biblic:al lntCTpmati.on StriC'$o 45; l.eidm: BciU, 2000), p. 194:• al~ aic.kennan.o, 'Du ~re. Grab', p. 285.
van
Post·Mortem Vindie4tion ofJesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
62
did not run exactly liS Cha.rimn d~cribes. They are mentioned here because they were monals who were deified." Chaere.u also sugge-sts t hat CaJlirhocts corpse may have disappeared because she was really a goddess who had rerurned to her rightful home in the divine realm. As already noted, the idt:o1 that divine beings apparently mortal are proven immortaJ whc:o they disappear from earth appears quite frequently in connection with assumption.90 Here Chaereas mentions Peleus., husband of the immortal Thetis, daughter of Nercus. Peleus and Thetis had a son (Achill<~) before she returned to her undersea abode." Thus Chariton sees rwo different possible implications of a5$umption: it is eithe.r the moment o f deilication, or the rerum of a d ivine being to the divine realm. A number of post-mortem assumptions are also narrated in the Mt~Gmorphos-. of Antoninus l iberalis (2nd-3rd c . cr)." Antoninus favours disappearance language generally in connection with mct.amorphosis.'.l ln the several cases where he narrates the character•s death ~fore the disap.. pearance of the body, it is dear from subsequent veneration or ritual that an apotheo.is has taken place. Besides the story of Alcmena (Ant. lib., Metam. 33), already mentioned above, Amoninus also narrates the post· morrem disappearances of Ctesulla (1.5), the beast known as Lamia (or Sybaris) (8.7), Aspalis (13.6}, and Metioche and Mcnippc (2.5.4 ). One story describes the post-morre,m disappearance of an enrire community, the Dorians (37.5), and their subsequent metamorphosis into birds. All these stories use either the (divine} passive of a~-~~"' or a~lll\s YtYIIO~at for the disappearance of the body or bodies. One story also contains the motif of unsuccessful search (oti• t\6.JV1]ilt]oa• 11ipolv (w oc:\~a To Tiis ' Aorra~iros), Metam. 13.6]. In the StQries where a post·mortem disappearance occurs, Antoninus seems to associate a person's metamorphosis with the disappearance of his or her body in such a way that the dead body is transformed into the new thing. This is the case with Aspalis: her corpse's disappearance coincides with her srarue•s appearance in a temple (Ant. lib., Metam. 13.6)." A simib.( logic obtains 89. 8.P. Rn.rdon (~. and tT:lns.). Colluud Gt~l!'.l N(Mit.U (Berlcelt"y, CA: UniYeniry of Califomta Pres&. 1989)_, p . .S3 o.. .S 1. Ac;rordiag to Homer, Ariadne was killed by Antmis (Od. 11.321-25); Plutarc;h repom 5t'Vt t:ll other Vet$iOTU of htr deroi~ (The-$. 20.1), but Apollodorus $1)$ chat Diocysus stole ((ipnOOt) bet away {BibLe.J .9; d . Paus., I.X.sa: 1.20.3, 10.29.4). About the S«ond c.oupk1 Apollodotui uys that Semele was made prrgnant with Oion)'$\JS by Ze\.1$, wh
sica~
93. .94.
nintb<enrury manuscript. ' A+avi~ua and related (onm oceut 22 times i.n the forty·ODe fhort r~urati\'CI.
So abo with Btitorna.ttU (Ant. Lib., M#IJJm, 40.·4), who after her disappearance js vc:Dt'rated by cbc name 'A+a1a.
Assumption in Antiquity
63
in the stories of Ctesulla (l .S) and Alcmena (33.3·4). But in another story, a different understanding of metamorphosis is expressed. A.fta the dearh of Oaunius, tht b~rb,uian Dlyrians cove:red W it [i.e., tht Dorio11.n$") 2p~ared $udde:nJy on the island and the Ulyrians slaughtered all tht Oorians u they ww: sacri.ficing victims. By lhe will of Zeus tM bodiet; of 1M Gttt.ka dWp~red (Ji+avio8fl) and ~ir souls weu c.b.anged (pniPa.\cwJ inro birds. (Ant. Lib., M~l4m. 37 1
tand.s and plotted ag.a.irut them. They
..s•'
Why would Antoninus introduce this idea, espedaJly if the post·morttm u ansformation of corpses seemed appropriate in other instances? One possi· bility is that this text combines (1) the traditional meaning of assumption, which involved the translation of the whole person alive to another place, and subsequent immortality in the body, with (2) the •tandard body-wul duali•m which held that deotb separates the soul from the body." The bodies of the Greeks are tran.s-ported to the divine pres.encct but thcit souls are turned into birds.17
4. Assrunpli<>n 1..4nguage in Gru* Epitaphs There appear$ to have been a conventional use of auurnption language ln the Graeco--Roman trad.ition, in epiraphs and other materials, in instances where a ~r-Son - typically a child - dies an unrimely death. Thest: sources do nor describe 'acrua1' assumptions., but use the language to <:onvey the grief of parentS whose children have been ' taken away' from rhem. As Anne-Marie Vetilhac remarked in her survey of Creek epitaphs dedicated to children, •Premature death is an a bduction• - and many of these sources do consider early death as an abduction of the deceased by some malcvolcnt divine agcnt.n Typical vocabulary (for instance, OpnclCc.l and omU&.l) and themes: (for example, divine 1ove and malice) occur together in suc.h rnatt:rials. A few cxarnpiC$ will be: sufficicnr tO illus-trate. In an epitaph dedicated to a 6fteen·year-old boy named Attalos (Cythium, c.75 BCE), ixpnci.C(A) and the theme of divine love appear together..
nivn OE tc.al OiK' EtWv 0 ~aplts IJITOS' ~pnaoE MotpWv, "Ana:~<, oo~IIOT
T.rao.s. Cc:loria. Met4morphosn. Sec the di.sco$$jon in Bolt,]tsus' Dt{eat of Dratb, pp. 261-65. .-\ .simibr ileen.ario .1ri~ in c:ctuin tau dc!K'ribing tbt assumption of Masy: $inct: bt.r death wu oot denied. maoy narrative: 30ur"' desc.ribe both the ~t of her 50UI ~nd t~ subseqU(nr auwnption of her eo~ He~ving sn e-mpty tOmb). Ste fun:htr bdow. 98. A.-M. Verilbac, nMt.Et ~onPOh Pol#r {,.;,.;, {nPArMATEIAI THI AJEION t.HMOIIEYMATON THI AJ(At.JiMIAI A9tfl0N, 1978- 1982), p. 2.173. 9S. 96. 97,
Post· Mortem VindiGOtion of jesus in the Sayings Gosptl Q
At fifteen yeats, t he cruel thread of the Fates [Moicas] snatched you away, Actalos, the delight of (your) most noble mother, Tyche, you who practise wisdom and [ ... ] into all good things, Attalos, whose life was well-blessed by Face: Do not be overly sorrowful: for though you are young, as some people: say, if ooe is friend co the gods, he has a swift death."
The last line of this stanza expresses the same sentiment as the famous line of Menandcr, "Whomever the gods love d ies young.' 1oo Alw, here as elsewhc:re, OprrO(w is used in a stereotypical way: often a child is snatched away by Hades oc the Fares. described wirh some negative epithet. 101 In this example it is the 'cruel thread of the Fates' that have caused the early death of Attalos, who nonetheless is described as 'living a life well-blessed by Fate' (t XPrJOci~t:\NJV ~lbTwt, J. 4). It is a remarkable {bu[ not arypical) contradiction that the themes or divine love and divine rna lite come together 35 they have here.IOl
The next two examples emphasize the haste of the deity.
To flpi~os ·~ ~TJ.,;',u, To Kallou j3pioj>os; O>s ntKpOu iillyos 6
99. IG $.1, 1186 = V~rilhac. 11Ait.E:C AnPOI, no. 62.A.J.6 (Gycruum, e. 1S BCE); author•li m mslarion. •ApftO(w is used twice. moro in the S3mc epitap~ stanzas C and 0: "'Ana>.ov (... ( ~prraotv ~ TOX•-"1 Moipa np~ aeavc:iTOIIS' (C1·2);"ATTO;AO$' ~ 6Cii~w\l ~PftOOC t:Cl a:o'rixc,• (0.2). 100. Menaadu, The Double Du.nver: Cw ot &eol 411Miion1 Ono8vt)oxu vf.os. a.. a1110 in
IPiurareh,J Con< Apo/1., 34. 101. See for example Peek, Griechi1che Grab,edichte, no. 149: 0 pOOKcruos QpnaoEv ..A16os TupW (Polyrrbcneia, Crete. 2nd c. B(l). For tht divine IU$Sivt, stt (Plutarch. I c.:t>N:. ApoU. 18: 'We must regard as v;ain and foolish suda exclamations as~ "'But he ought nor to luve bc:fll tnatchl!d away while young!"' (QU• oUK E&1 viov OVTa &:\IGpnayiiwu, trans. &bbin.. LO.); ~nd Luci''"• Lua. 13: 'Dearest ~hiJd, you ace gone from me~ dead. rdt aw•y before your rime .. .' (Tilt\IOV ~61arov. olxn 1101 Kat Ti&v!)Kas Kai npO Qpas irvlvtrrciCJ8n.s, ttam. Harmc>a,. LCL). 102. V
Assumption in Antiquity
6S
our beautiful baby, six months old? What bitt
In a similar way, the following example castigates- an 'ins.atiable Hades' with a Hne that is repeated almost verbatim in sev~ral epitaphs of similar age and provenance. 'A rrMpw~' Ai6q, Ti ~· vrin tov ijprrao•s ci~vw;
Tl oneUlittS': oU ooi rrclVTEs ~~1Ab~t8a; Insatiable Hades, why did you snatch my child away so s uddenly? Why did you hasten? Arc we aU not owed to you? 104 In these examples, both lxpnO:(UJ and ontV~ arc used to accuse the divine agent blamed for the early death of both robbery and undue haste.'"
Sometimes, however, it was the deceased who was thought of as hascening from this world? fleeing its evils. In the following example, t he soul haStens ro the divinity: ~;e,ov Ka~bxatpov
exu ~o6• ofipa, ~t rrotlaq;
~S' beavchou oc:lpa violo ~eOpou·
on;O&v OSOv 8Eiqv y(lp inronpo~uro\ioa 1J
66
Post·MOrlem Vindication of]<St<S in tf1e Sayings Gospel Q
disappearance Language does not occur (since the body does not in fact disappear).
Assumption in ]ewUh Uterat.ure
Tht following list from the Talmudic writing D~rek £retz Zada names only nine or ten insunccs of assumption in the Jewish tradition: lbere were nine who enreted tbt Garden of Eden alive, viz..: £noc:h the $00 of Yered, £Jijah, ~ Messiah, El.icur the sernnt of Abtaham, Hiram, king of iyre, Ebed~mek<:h the Cushite. ]abet the soo o( R. Juda che Prince, .8ith.iah the daughter of Pharaoh. and Straeh., the daughter of AtN:r. Some $3.J: Also R. Joshua b. Levi. (Jm. &. Z..t. 1.18)1"
For most of these individuals, assumption storjes have not survived, but the li$t demonstrateS the conservative nature of the Jewish assumption u adirion.
Possibly, this results from a reluctance
to
attribute to no more than a few
exceptional individuals the kind of exalted (or even dei6ed) post·mortem status that was usually assoc:iated with assumption in antiqujty. For, as shown above, a$$umption or disappearance in the Graecc::>--Roman sources generally implies either (a) the deification of a morral person, or (b) the return of an immortal person to the divine realm. Whatever the tase, the noture of the jewish assumption mu!itions limits the following survey to this se(ecr group of individual>: Enoch, Elijah, Moses, the Boolt of Wisdom's 'righteOus one' (Wisdom 2- S), and • few othe,. including the seen of apocalyptic writings.'"
1. Ovmri<w: Terminology and Motifs There are only a few paniculars of terminology and motif in which Jewish assumption narratives differ from tbosc: found in Grace
109. A few mioor tand mainly late) assumption traditions wiU not be discuned Muin: tbost o$:itbe.uu; &ee Zwiep1 Asansi~ p. 6-4 n. 1; and the Teacher of Righr~ <1«0tding (possibly) to 4Q491; see M.G. Abegg, Jr... 'Who Asctnded tO He;aven? -4Q491, -4Q427. and the Teac:btt of R.q;hteOU$11t$$', in P.W. flint and CA. .Evans (cd's.t, &dtalology. Mnsianism (/nd the ~411 S,a Scrolls (Srudies in the De2d Sc2 Sc-rolls :and Rt~ted Uuratute; Cr:tnd Rapids.. Ml: Berdmans. 1991)., pp. 6J ..73.
A.s5Jtmption in Antiquity
67
np.,.
lor assumption in Hebrew is The Septuagint translates this verb with ~naTtilY]~• (Gen. 5.24) and CrliOAa~jloV<.> (2 Kgs 2.9, tO, ll), so that these two verbs b«<>mt the usual terms for assumption in Hellenistk Jewish writings. 110 'Aprrcitc.l and its related forms are extremely uncommon in the jewish assumption tradition. Language that denies the death of the individual is common, for generaUy assumption was viewtd as an escape frorn death.'" Otherwise, the same basic terminology and motifs are found in both Hellenistic Jewish and Graec::o·Rornan assumption narratives. 1l 2 A few important differences should be mentioned, however. lt is not surprising that the Jewish sources are helitant when it comes to apotheosis: so, instead of venerating the assumed person as a god or establishing a cult in their honour, the witnes~s ohen are depicted as praising God. HJ This: is not to uy that J>O$HlSSumption heavenly exaltation is ruled out e.nrirely, however. In fact, GUnter Haufe has shown that there is a nearly inevitable conncctkln in jewish thought between as-s umption and eschatological fuo.ction. He concluded that 'only a hiStorical person who was received into the heavenly realm by means of a bodily assumption could receive a s-pecial es-chatological function•. u-t This tendency, it wiJI be argued below, could also work in the opposite direction: that is, sometimes figures who were accorded a prominent eschatological ro le came to have bodily assumption (and therefore heavenly preservation) artributed to them. Typically the person is thought of as being preserved in heaven for their future escharologieal role, and, as will become apparent, such a role almost inevitably involves some kind of exaltation in heaven or a return tO earth. One other imponant fea ture found in some Jewish assumption narratives was noted by Loh6nk. In some sources, the per-s on about to be raken into heaven receives) through divine agency, foreknowledge of the assumption. This idea is met already in the assumption of Elijah, where he, Elisha, and the 'sons of the prophets' all know what is about to happen (2 Kgs 2.1-12), although the story does not explain how they have received this knowledge. In later sources, the rime that intervenes between the rcc:cption of this revelation and the a$Sumption itself is meant explicitly as a period in which the sage can instruct the people of God, whether directly or by malting a wdtten record, about the end.IU
Lobliok, Himmelf•"''· p. 73. Sou Lohfink, Himmel{alwt, p. 74. See th
68
Post-Mortem Vindication of'"'" in the Sayings Gospel Q
2. E.noch In che body of licerarure x Tci> 9tci>, 'Enoch pleased Cod'). james VanderKam tbjnks 'walking with God' connotes an assoc:ia6on with angels: he sees the definite C"i1 '?Mi1 as a clue. that Enoch enjoyed an ongoing fellowship with angels, the ·etohim. This is an important recurring cheme in the Enochic liter· ature and in other sources (.such as jub. 4.2l..22). Accor:ding tO VanderK.. m, this text distinguishes those with whom Enoch walked, C,i1;~i1, from the one who took him- God. O,il ~ without the anicle. 117 Zwiep's conclusion 116. For a comprehensive survey of Enocbie liteuture a.nd a.Jhuioch, see J.C. VanderKam. Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbi.a, SC: Univcrsjty of South C:uolin:t Pte», 199.Sh .iCC alt;o j.C. V;u'lder.Kllm, '"E.nOch TraditiOn$ in j1.1bilet$ and Other Sccond.Cmrury Sow=', SBl.SP (1918], pp. 1.229-51; ILA. Krai~ 'Ph;)o OoSg - /l.u,..m.. - Him.,.•lfahrt, pp. 152-92.; and Zwj,ep, A.s«nsioft, pp. 41-.58. 117. VanderKam. EnO<.h: A MAn {or AU Genl:lfd of rbe f.noch figur~ of th-e Son of M4n (WMANT, 61; NeuldrcbenNiuyn: Neukirdiener Vcrl.ag. 1988}; R. Borger. 'The lnc;a.ntation Series Bit Mi#rl and Enoch'& AK.ensioa to Heuco.. in D.T. T~umura and R.S. Hess (t"CJ.s..J, 'I Slwd~d TttUriptlo~ from IH{or~ t~ Flood': A~ Nur &sum, Likrary, and UnguistkAf1p1oa.t.be1. to Gmn.iJ 1·11 (Sources for Bibl i~ l .a.nd Theo1o&cal Study, 4; Winona l..Jke. IN: Eismbraun5t 19:94), pp.l14-33 (223-32}.
Assttmption in Antiq~ity
69
is appropriately cautious.: ~whatever the preci$t reference is, Eooeh is marked by his contact with the heavenly world'."' As alrady noted, the Scpruaginr depam sisni6cantly from rbe Hebrew in Gen. S.2~: 'and Enoch pleased God, and he wu not found, because God rr:anslattd him' (r;alfVT)p{aTl)Otv'EV!Wx t~ 8u;, r;ai oUx tlYpioxno Ot1 J.UTi 8!)s). Armin S.:hmin has shown
o
Ill. Z.wil"p, ~~ p. <42 o.. 1. II,, A. Sebm;n, •o;. Ang.tbcnUb
s;,.s, P. .. , ).
Ill. 5«, for iaAunce, Gnt. R.ab. 1; set also D. LUhtmattn, •Hcnocb und else Mrtaoo&a-,
ZNW" ( I"S), pp. 11»-16. 12J. So Skehan and Oi Leila, Wistlom of B8tl Sirll, pp. 54 1-42. 124. ThiJtcxt will ~ ex.unioed in detail below. 1!.$. S..abo LAB 1.16; 1 Cf...,, 9.3.
Post-Mortem Vindit:4tion ofJesus in the Sayings Cospe/ Q
70
Philo of Alexandria takes the assumption language of Gen. S.24 LXX rnttaphorically. 12' In one instance, Philo interprets 'he was not found' to mean 'hat while Enoc:h existed on earth, he was imperceptible to the wicked because of his goo
arC' cotd of l'£noc:bl that he p-roved "to be plc:asing ro God and wu not (oUDd beeautt God cnnsfetred him' (IJ.lTf&rtKtv aUTO.., 0 &Os},. (or tnmsfer:antt impli~:S rurniog and changing{~ yQp "'n0.8to1s- "tf)Om\11 i~+olvc1 KOi ~~t~Mv). and che c:hange is tO the bctttt because it is brought about by tbe fOfttbough_r of Gc>d. (A.br. 17-18)121
Philo also takes associa1ed 'disappearance' language metaphorically: Enoch w•s not found 'either becouse the old reprehensible life is blotted out and disappears (i)¢>aulo8a1) and is no more £oun~ ... or btcause he who is 1hus transferred and takes his plate in the better class is noiUrally hard 10 find' (Abr. I 9). '" Though Philo does no1 give a lileral reoding of !he bodily assumption of Enoch in these sources, he elsewhere echoes traditions about his assumption without dearh,l21 In Questions and Amwers <>n Genesis. Philo suggests bodily assumption when he says that 'the cod of worthy and holy men is nor death bur trans~ lation and approaching another place•, and when he goes on to talk about Enoch's becoming invisible (QJUJe.st. in Gen. 1.86). But here there is some tension, for Philo a l$0 insists that Enoch's assumption transferred him to an incorporeal mode of existence: 'When he was sought, he was inV'isible, not merely rapt from their eyes. For the translation to another place is nothing else than another position; but he is said (to have moved) from a sens-ible and visible place to an incorporeal and intelligible form' (1.86). 1,. Philo seems here to hold thai Enoch disappe3red from bodily life but was transferred (or assumed) to incorporeal existence; the same got$ for Elijah and Moses as well. This is reminiscent of Ovid's iipproach to the assumptions of Romulus and Herakles. combining bodily disappearance with a 'shedding? of the mortal body. 1J 1
126. Josephus is relatively .siJent on the
128. Trans. Colson, LU.
129. Sec P. Borsen. 'Heavenly Ascent in Philo: An Examination of ~t.:aed Pa563gtS', in C.A. Evam and j.H. Charlesworth (eds.), Tb# P$hUkpivapht1 4nd f,tlr/y BibU¢.1 /•"'~"<""""' USPSup,
The assumption of Enoch. receives more extensive treatment in Enochic texts such as the Book of H~.aven/y Luminaries and the Dream Visions (now I (E.thiopic) E."'xlJ 72-82 and 83-90 respectively), and in ]ubikes, writings that date from the third ~nd sctond centuries 8(.£. The Book of Heavenly Luminaries does not narrate Enoch's assumption, but the seven holy ones give him advance warning of it, admonishing him tO ust the inte.rvening rime to instruct his children: •we will leave you with your son for one year until you again give your (last?) command, to teach your children, write for them, and testify tO all your children; and in the second year rhey will take you from them' (1 En. 81.6). m According to ]ub. 4.21, Enoch was with the angels of God three hundred years, during which time he wroce and bore wimess against the Watchers (42.2). Then he 'was raken from among the children of men, and [the angels] led him to the garden of Eden for greatness and honour. And behold, he i.s there writing condemnation and judgment of the world, and all of the evils of the
they went aw:1.y into t~r homes. (lEn. ( A) 67.1-3) 1.r.
132. Citations from I (Ethiopi~) Enoch arc from G.W.E. N ickdsbu:g and J.C. VandcrKam, 1 £noQ,: A New TrQns/ation ( MinneapOlit~: Fortress, l00-4). 133. O.S. Winrennute •trat\3.). •jubilees·. OTP, pp. l.J,S .. J-42. U4. 5«' also C nwis Apo<;typbmt 2 and l f.n.odt 106-07,
Paradi&c to ask Enoch
w he~
~
Mednuelab wisiu
Laro«h's son is legitioute. Set Zwiep,
Asun$iM~
pp.
4748. 135. C. Mttrich., •R«ent Srud.ies in tbt Slavonie Boolt of Enodt', JSP 9 41991), pp. 3~2;
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Go•pel Q
Encxh is exalted to the presence of the lord, as in the Hebrew of Sir. 49.14, according to which he w~s •taken up within'. In mher early sourtes his postassumption place of residence is Eden Uub. 4.2J-26; compare 1 En. 60.23), Parwaim or Paradise (1Qap Genu 2.19-23), or among the angels at the end of the earth (1 En. 106.7-8). The assumption of Enoch in 2 Eno
*
are the Similitudt.s, which were probably composed in the first century CE (or somewhat earlier)."0 In • difficult passage ( 1 Enoch 70-71 ), the fina l assumption of Enoch is narrated - 1hree times., acrually, at 1 E.n. 70.1-2, 71. 1 and 7 1.5- (rom £noch,s poim of view. 1• 1 The crucial issue is Enoch's status after his assumption in the Similitudes. 'That Son of man', an exalted heavenly be.ing who figures prominently throughout rbc work (also called Chosen One, Righteous One, and Messiah), is apparently identified in rheie clooing chapters as Enoch himself. This is problematic: it seems unlikely that this was intended elsewhere in rhe work, nor is there a hint that Enoch ls .some kind of earthly manifestation of the
(probably pre-cxistem 1"'1} Son of man. 143 The distinction between Enoch and 'that Son of man' remains de-a.r unlil 1 E.n. 71.14, where Eooch is told, ' You are that son of man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness
138. See 6orgen1 'Heaveolr As«nt to Philo', p. 250. 139. See S. Liebcrm:ano, 'Meurron: The Meaning o( His Name aod His _Functions.. in I. Gruenw.-ld (ed.), AIHXIdyptic tJnd M,-rkabah Mystic.ism (ACJU, 14; Ldden: bril~ 1980), pp. 235-41. Zwicp. Ascension, pp. .S l-52, argue3 th,r the idencikarioo o( Enoch with Metatton <:aMOt be dated earlier thin Tg. Ps.·]. Geo. S.U (c...450 a). 140. Stt M. Slack, 'The M~1111 ia niJJm of the Parabl« o( Enoc:h: Their Date and Contribution to Christological Origins', in j.H. Charlcswonh (~d.}, Tb~ Mtuiah: Devtlcpmn.ts in 1;4rli~st )Ndaibn lind CJrritiJanity (Minneapolis: fortres&., 1982), pp. 145-68; Colliru, Apocalypt,.c /magi,wion, pp. tn-78. 1•1. Cf. LobJinlc, Himmdfahn, p. 38. 142. On d~ pre~)l:i$teooe of the Son o£ man of the S,.mil#utks, see l Lr. 48.2, 6 and 62.7. ~e also J.C. VandcrKam. •Rigbrcous ~ Messi2.h, Ch~ One, and Son of Man io 1 Enoch 37·71', in Ol:trl.esworrh (eel.), n~ M miah, pp. 169-91 (179-8:2); Collins., Apo<4/yptic Imagination, pp. 18g..89. 143. VanderKam concludes that 'tht ~enti.6carioon of Enoch with tbe son of man in 7t.H is not inconstsf:ent with th,( rot of the composition· ('-RightMus One', p. 185}; d. Collins, Apot:t~lyptic lmagintllif)n, pp. 187-91, who thiWcJ cb. ?J is red.-rtion.al
Assumption in Antiquity
73
dwells on you. and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake you.' 1...., A number of soltJtioos to t he problem of the idemificarjoo o f Enoch with the Son of man have been posed. Some have .s-uggested that no identification is meant by ·son of man': it is u~d, as it is in Ezekiel, as a form of address with no eschatc>logic;al implication (S<:c also I En. 60.10)."' Others think that chapter 71 is a redactional addition.l~ This explains w hy Enoch•s assumpdon is de$cribed more than once, bur not how rhe identification of Enoch with ' thar Son of man' happened in the fi rst place, either here or in later sources (J Enoch and Tg. Ps.·J. Gen. 5.26). VaoderKam has provocatively argued that the identification was made because the Son of mao in the Similitudes is a representative figure, rhe heavenly counterpart o f the community of the righteous. Enoch. the prototype of rig.btwusness., in 1 Enoch 1 1 becomes o ne with hls heavenly counte-rpart when he is assumed tO heavenly glory. VandtrKam views the Enochic Son of man 6gure as ~n amal,gotm of other 'messianic' biblical figures, in parcicular the ~rvant of 2 Isaiah and t he 'one like a human being• from Daniel 7. He therefore sees a hint of the identi6eation already in the Book of the Watchers (I Enoch 14), where Enoch is described in terms reminiscent of Daniel 7.141 John Collins argues similarly, bur rnore tentatively, th;ar Enoch, as the prewernincnr righteous person and as one who shares the Son of man's revelatory role-, takes his place with (not as} the: Son o f man, as the first tO receive tht: destiny of tht: righteous (see 1 En. 62 .14).l•t Whether or not jc can be maintained that Eooc:h is idenri6ed with the Son of man in the Similitudes, at rhe very least f.nC)C:h at his assumption becomes enlted to the presence of che Son of man and the Lord of the Spiri<S (I En. 70.1) and becomes che heavenly paradigm and dest iny of the righteous on earth: "And all will walk on your path since righteousness will never forsake you; with you wiJJ be their dwdling and with you, t heir lot, and f-rom you they will nor be separa[ed forever and forever and ever' (1 En. 7 1.16). The next verse re-er.nphasiz.e5 tbe connection between Enoch and the Son of man, but shifu to the third person, possibly indicating that it is a later additi.o n. I Enoch 7~71 is probably the most !triking example in
1-44. A textuaJ probltm at J En. 70.1 should be noted: one manuseripc omiu the Ethiopie word •tn rhe p.menee of" (beldba.ru), giving the reading "the name of that Son o( man wu raised aloft ... to the Lord of Spirits'. ln this case: an ickmification betwccn Enoch and the Son of man i11 al.rudr implied at the bea;innlng of 1 P..tt()C), 70. ~ M. CaJtey, ·n. u.. of the Tenn ·s.n ol Mao• m the Simmtu<Je. of Eoocb', }S/1 (19761, pp. 1-29 (25-2~}.
145. Stt, for insta~ E. Isaac, '1 (Echiopic Apocalypse of) EM<:h', OTP, pp. I.S-89 (I.SOn. t}. J46. Sec, for inu.ance-. C.C. Caragounis, 1'bc So" of Mtm (WUNT, 2J.l8; TUbingcn: Mohr Siebeek, 1986), pp. 9~9 4, 11 ~12 n. 121. Zwiep wooden wbcther 'tht- present (post..Ch.ristLan!) Etb.iopic tat is a fajthful reprcxh~tion of i~ (Semitic) V&rl4g.' (AJ.Ctftlion, p. S4). 147, VanderKam, 'Righteou!> Qoe·, pp. 18'1-83. 148. Collios,Apo
74
Post-Morum Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
early jewish literature of the connection between assumption and exaltation
or eschatologic:al funetion. 1·"' 3. Elijah
The assumption of Elijah (2 Kgs 2.1-18) is the only aosumption narrative in the Hebrew Bible. Many of the characteristic fearures of assumption
narratives observed occur here: the onJooker's point of view (Elisha); foreknowledge (2.3, 5, 9); media of assumption (a whirlwind and a chariot and horse< of fire, 2.11); bodily disappearance expressed with 'nOt ~eing' language (, to return to the divinity"'), to avoid suggesting tbat Elijah was given an honour that Moses was not. 1.s. Christophel:' Bcgg, howe~o•cr, rightly notes that O.¢>ovi~w and related language would signal to 'a cultivated pagan reader' that Elijah was assumed in a way that cXvaxCtlpiQ would not. 1SS Philo merulons Elijah's assumption only in connection with Enoch -.Elijah, along with Enoch and ' the protopropher' (viz., Moses), had been taken up co God without dying.u• Ph.ilo s.ay5 nothing about Elijah•a presence in heaven except that he followed Enoch 'on high from eanh to heaven at the appearanc~t of the divine counte.. nanee' (Q""'"· in Gen. 1.86). 157
H9. See ZcUe.r; 'Entruc:kung', p. Sl?, wbo saw Q 13¥35 i.o light of tbe conntetioo berwetn Enoch•, at~•umption J.nd hii in.\UIIation as Son of man in this text. 1$0. Sec- LohJink, Him.,l(ahrt, pp. S1..S9. For a comprehmsiYe analysis, we Scbmin, LJtrUc:iwna- Au/n4hrM- Himme.lfohrt, pp. 4?-151. 151. Zwiep, Atamfon. p. 60.
152. Zwitp, As~ pp. 61,63 n. -4. JS3. S<e Ant. US (F.noeh~ 3.96 and 4.326 (Mo...). 154. ~e J.D. Tlbor, '"'Retwning to the Divinity"': j ouphus•s Portrayal of tht o ;,.ppoua""" ol &oeh, El;jah, aJ>d M-·. JBL 108 (1.989), PI'• 225-38 (228-29). US . C. 8egg, '"josephus'$ Portnyal of the Di.sappeu:ancn of Enoch, £1ij~ and Mosa"'1Some Obstrvations',}BL 109 (1990•. pp. 691- 93. 156. S<e Borgen, ·H.. vco.ly A.ccur in Philo", p. 2>49. IS?. 'fraa&. Mamas. La... Tbctkbn:w of Sir. U.t4, which says that 'Few oo earth bavc been such as Enoch; he too was taken up within•, might imply tfu;t £Jjjo1h it being QOWtted log
Assumption in Antiquity
75
However, the COitVietion that Elijah had bee.n ra..ken up and prderved in heaven gave rise to rhe belief that he would recurn. Although many
.eholars bold Mal. 3.23-24 to he an addition to Malachi,'" it is still an early expression of this view; Sir. 48.9-10 also connects EJijah's assumption
explicitly ro his furure escharological role. The Animal Apocalyp~ describes allegorically how of all the prophel$ who are chosen and sent, and then killed by Israel, one- presumably Elijah -escapes because 'the Lord of the sheep saved ir from rhe hands of rhe sheep and brougbr ir up rome [Enoch] and made ir dwell (rhere)' (1 En. 89.52). Elijah is probably olso the ram who appeatS with Enoch before rhe judgment (90.31). 4 Ezra 6.26 has Elijah in mind as being among 1those who were taken up, who rrom their birth have not ta-5ted death'. These are seen by those who remain after the end of the age, but it is not cetta.in what kind of eschatologtcal role, if any, 4 Ezra envisions for them. This might be a muted reference to the tradition, discussed below* that E.noch and Elijah would return tQgether to do battle with an eschatologic;~l adversary.
4. Moses'$' Despite Ehe plain de$Cripdon o( his death in Deuc. 34.1 ~8, speculation
concetnjng Moses' assumption arose, probably because oJ the mystery surrour'lding his death and burial (Oeut.
34.5 ).1~
The document known
as rhe Assumptio Mosis (the Testament of Moses) is of little help, for its ending i.s missing, 161 and fragmentary citations indicart that it narrated an of MQISes' soul) not his assumption. 1f l Thus a tradition concC(Oing the assumption of Moses can only be inferred from sources which are hesitant, vague. or late, 10 or from other sources that suggest a future return of Ol$CC-Ot
1$8. S« A.B. Hill, Mol4t.hi: A New Tr.:ms.Lt#on witb introduction onJ CommmUn)• tAB.lSD; New York: Doubleth.y. 1998). pp. 36:)--66 (or discussion and survey of schol2nhip. JS9. Jewish traditi-on understood M05e:S' a!ICCnt of Mount Sinai a.s 1 heavenly J~5Cent whkh resulted in a (propetly qualifitod) dti6e2tion (e.g.,. Philo, Vit. Mos. J. l$8). See VI.A. Medts, "f'h.e Propltet·Killg: Mo.su TrtJtlitions Dnd th~ Johannim Chmlology (NovTS1.1p, 14; Ltideo.: Brill, 1967), pp. 3$4-71; HiauneHarb, Asunt to H~4vm, p. 49; P. Borgen, 'Moses., Jesw, and the Roman E.mpcror. Obsen·arions in Philo's Writings and the R~datioo of )oho', NovT 38 (t9%f. pp. H5- 59 (1511-52). 160. Loh6nk, Hi~lfahn, p. 62. 161. Sc:c J. Tr()n'lp (eel. Jnd fta!t$..), 'l'IK A.$su.rnption of Mt>Sd: A Critias/ Edition witb Comm..ot"'Y tSvrP, 10; u-;c~= E.). Brill, 1?93), pp. 27~5 . 162. juDe: 9 refers ro the dispuu owr the body of Moses, and Ckm. Al-ex., Strom. 6.132.2 refers ro rhe 'double M0$1eS' being 'ulu:n away' (irYa}.a:IJ~a~\1011'): 'one who {Wfllf) with the angels, and the other who was deigned wonhy tO be buried in the ravines' (era... Tromp, .w.mptio• of Moses, p. 283). 163. Oo latt.r sourca.. seeK. Hucker and P. Scb.iftt, "Nachbibliscbe Traditiooco vom Tod des Mosco', ;n 0 . Bet>, et a.l . (eho.s·Shuli«k & lluprech~ 197~), pp. 1~7-7~ ( 16~~. 170-7~ ).
76
Posi'Morlem Vindication of]esot.S in the Sayings Gospel Q
Moses, as will be seen below. 164 Philo is the earliest writer to meorioo Moses' assumption. Although he states in one text that Moses died and was buried by immortar powtrs (Vit. Mos. 2.29 1), in Quoe.st. in Cen. 1.86 he considers Moses (the 'prot.o prophet') to have mer the same end as Enoch and Elijah. As already seen, in t hat text he describes bodily disappear3nce but interprets it as a tnosfcr 'from a sensible and \'itibte plact. to an incorporeal and intelligible form. Elsewhere he appears to repeat this view: ('W]hen Moses was about to die we do not hear- of him 'lo1Vifl&' or 'being added' like those others. No room in him for addiltS or ~k i ng ~w~y. But through dle Word of 1ht Su.preme Cau.se he is w mslated ii.Jtnxwlannatt. eveo through that Word by which also the whole uni..·erse was formed. tSat'r. J.8t 1 ~
Peder Borgen thinks Philo knows rwo different c.radicion.s, one about Moses-' death and one about his assumpcion. 1" j osephus ls somewhat clearer in Atlt. 4.326, although this t.ext is ambivalent. This- description of the end of Moses is similar in marly ways to Gracco-Roman assumpcion narratives. 10i And wbile hL' b3de fatewcll co EJeazar a nd Joshua ana was ye:r communing with them, a cloud o! <~sudden ~ed upol'l biro and be disappeared in :a r<~vine (Q:~vi ~ETal t:aTil 1wos ~payyos). But he has wrinen of himself in the $1cred books 1~1 he died, for fear Jes.t they shpl}oa!).1611
It is unclear whether josephus thought this c redible. Tabor thinks Josephus is reporting a tradition he is not inclined to take seriously, and suggests that •we take his line about Moses not ... returning to the divinity'" ... as a conscious resistance to such contemporary evaluations of other extraordinary figures, whether that of Philo of Moses, the. Christians of Jc$us or Dionysius of Aeneas and Ro muJus'.l" In Begg,s opinion, o n t he other hand., josephus believes that ' Moses actually did unde.rgo an [assump[ion]' but emphasi2.es
164. As ZwM!:p noctt, MO$t$' ap~rance at the Ttant>6guutioo (Mk 9.Z...10 and puallt!s) with Elijah •implie!i h.is previOI.L~ rapture inro hea ..-en' fAsansion. p. 70).
165. Trans. Colson and Whitakt
Assumption in Antiquity
77
Moses• char;:~cteristic humilicy: he would $000tr write that he died than have anyone venerate him a.s a dc:ity. 110 This s«:ms more likely, espec-ially since j osephus writes earlie.r in the narrative that Moses was about to disappear {Ant. 4.323). Yet he is dearly more cautious than Philo concerning Moses' divlnicy.
5. Other Figu·res
A number or sources refer to the eschatological ret urn of 6gures who {presumably) have been preserved in heaven after their assumption. Although principally Enoch and Elijah, and sometimes Moses, a re. in view, some secondary figures. Ez:r01 and Phinchas fo r instance, are told that they would join a group who would return at the a ppointed time. ln 4 EzrtJ (lace lst c. CE~, Ezra le.ams that he would remain in the company of t hos.e who had been assumed like him 'until the times are ended' {4 Ezra 14.9). The rerurn to e.ar'th is a lso forerold: ' It M\-all be tb3t whoever rem3ins 2fter 211 that I have foretold to you sh~ll be. tivtd and shall sec mr salvation and the <"nd of my world. And they shall Stt those who were t2kt:n up, who from their birth have: 1)01 h~od death; and me hc:art of the: e2nh '1: ioh:thit3ntS s h:tll ~ ch2nged :tod convened to ;11 different spirir.' (4 f-zra
6.25-261
Here they rerurn, apparel\t)y, to restore and convert the world . Phinehas the son of Elt.oazar the priest is told, ac<.:ording ro the:: Libtr Antiquitatum Biblicarum (1st c. C£), that be will join chose who before him were lifted up; God says that at a future time he will make them all come, presumably back to canh, where they will taste death (LAB 48.1 ). A$ Zwiep notes~ the plural here mighc imply Enoch and Moses if cbefore' is raken chronologically.'" The reference to the death of those who had been ;Jssumc::d after their future appearance is unusual, and may have in mind the tradition(s). rdlecred in Rev. 11.3-13 and other sources, about the murdered witnesses. m
Nothing in Rev. 11.3-1J suggests, however, that the two witnesses have come from heaven, though they can be identified as Moses (who turn$ the watersro blood and strikes the eanh with plagues, Rev. 11.6) and Elijah (who
1?0. &gg. 'Some O bservations•, p. 692; similatly Zwie-p, A,$t:~n$kln0 p. 69; d. A. Yarbro Collins, 'Apo~osis :tnd ~urrccrjon·, in P. Sorgen aod S. Give-non (cds.), TIH N.w
TrU.tJment anJ H~llmdtic]udaiSm fPt:abody, MA: Hmclrick$00, 1997), pp. 88-100 HIS aDd
n. 36). 171. Zwlep. Asunsion., p. 7$. 172. S«: M. 8l3ck, 'The ·Two W'itne$ses'" of Rev J1:3f in Jewish and C hristian
Apocalyptic Tradition', in W..D. Davies and C.K. Barrett (eds.), Donwm GentiHdum (Fc:5t$Chrih D. Daube; Oxf()td: Cbtc:ndon. 1978}, pp. 227-37 ( 2J2t4
Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
78
de$troys with 6re and shun the heavens, vv. 5 and 6). 17J: Their ;Jppearanc.e m do battle against the Beast is probably their return to earth from heaven. The cxpect3tlon of an eschatOlogical return of Elijah is well known,11.. but there are also a few texts that look ahead to a return of Mo$tS (or a prophet like Moses' ") together with Elijah. The clearesr is Deut. Rab. 3.17: !God) added: ·M~. I swear to you, u you de\·ottd your Life to their ~rvic:c: io thi~ world, so roo lo the time to oocoe when I being Elijah, tbt prophet, unto them~ rhe fiNO
of you shall come togetMr.'17'
Such a tr•dition may lie behind the appearance of Mo"'' rogerhet with Elijah at rhe Transfiguration (Mk 9.4 par. Mt. 17.3; Lk. 9.30). David Aune suggests that t he author of this un.it in Revelation 11 adapted an existing tradition about Enoch and Elijah., and avoided naming the witnesses, since 'paralJel texts regularly nam~ Enoch and Elijah as the two eschatolOgical prophets who will return ot the end of the age'. 117 An t-.arHer rext that has Enoch and Elijah reruming together is tht Enochic Animal Apocalypse: the angels who brought Enoch up set him and the ram holding on•o him (Elijah) in the midst of the sheep prior to tlle judgment (l En. 90.31 ), 17' possibly to function as wirnesses.'" The C<>ptiG Apocalypse of Elijah, a document of uncertain date (2nd to 4th c. CE) which may at points be based upon carHer jewish materials., 110 describes a rerum of Enoch and Elijah (Copt. Apoc. Elij. 4.7-19) that is strikingly similar to the appearance of the unnamed wimesscs in Revelation u.m Lactantius also knows a 173. See R.H. C~rlet, A Critie414nJ Extgfflc.al ~tary 011 t~ R~larion o(S$. }olm (ICC'..; 2 vols..; Edinburgh: T&TCiarlc, 1920), pp. 1.281-82; Black, •Two Witnes:Se$•, p.l27; D.E. Auoc, RetJ¥1Rtion 6-16 (WBC, 52.8; Nashville: Thomas Nclso~ 1998J, pp. 600, 613-16. 174. Mal. 4.S; SiL 48.10; Mk 9.11.
175. Zwiep eorrccdy nous tlut the expectation o( MoKS' ~:SChatol<>gical recum may ba\'C ~ intc:rcban.geable with the expectatiOn of a prophet lilu Most:s (Asunsi
176. Trans. j. Rabbinowitz.. Midrosh Rabbah: J'>e.ttJnonomy (cd. H. Frudm~n :and M. Simon; london: So!)cino, 1974). ~also Sifrc 355; Tg. Ps.•). Oeut. 33.21; 'At· B~:r. 67 (cited by Zwicp, ~ir.m~ p. ?0 n. 4). 177. AW1Ct RQ.otlation, p. 2.61.0. 61.-dc thought Rev. 11.3-13 is 'almost certainly a Chrisrianiud \'et~ion of a still older jtwish Autichrisc myth' ('Two Witnc:$Se$•, p. 226). 178. Chi.cles, Rn1!.1atM'>n, p. 1.281; Black, 'Two Witnf!'Sscs', pp. 227- 29. 179. R.H. Ch:~.rle$, TM Book of £.n0
Assumption in Antiquity
79
similar form of this tradition; he describes the return of a single (unnamed) figure, a 'great prophet' having all the powe" described in Rev. 11.5·6 (Div. Jnst. 7.17). 11i Howtver the traditions may be related, and whatever thtir origin might be, they all describe the appearance (from heaven, Copt. Apoc. Elij. 4. 7) of a figure or figure$ who would fight against the cschatological advers~ry, be killed, go unburied, and thtn riS(' from the dead and ascend into heaven."' However, the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah is remarkable, first because it describes a second return of E:noc.h and Elijah. After cb.:sc thiog:s (tbe judgment of the shetp {.~.J()-3U1 '*), Elijt~h and En«h will come down. 'They wiU lay down th<" fleih of the world, and they will rettive their spitiruaJ Oesh. 'Tbty will pursU( the ton of lawlu$J'I«:n and kill him Ji.oc:e he i5 not ablt" to .spe:ak.. (Copt. Apcu;. EIH. 5.32)
lr is odd that after having been preserved bodily in heaven Enoch and Elijah shed their mortal Besh upon their return. Terrullian suggests that Enoch and 'Elijah wiJl destroy Antichrist by me;;~:ns of their martyrdom, and this idea may be impHed here as well.'" lc is also unusual that a third witness, Tabitha, appears before Enoeh and Elijah (Copt. Apoc. Elij. 4.1 ·6). Tabitha reproves c:he 'Shameless One', c:ha..
Hutchinson &: <"..o.• 1896), pp. 203-l 1; j.M. NUnd, 'Zum Schicksal der edarologischen Propbctt:n', BZ 20 (1976), pp. $9-94; R.J. &uckh
Post-Mortem Vindicafion of)esu• in the Sayings Gospel Q
80
apacryphon and the Arabic version of the History of joseph"' (which names Tabitha and Sibyl as wimcsses with Enoch and Elijah against the Antichrist) represent expansions of rhe tradition rhar Tabitha was to be an opponent of the 'Shameless One'. Possibly It was because of her role • longside Eooch and Elijah in the Coptic llpocai)'(Jse of Elijah that s he was later thought of as having been taken into heaven, 'since her subsequent death is not recorded in
Acts'. 1" This could be an ins-ranee of an assumption legend growing out of a tradition about someone's eschatological role, rather than vic;:c: versa. Earlier examples of this occur in 4 Ez·ra and 2 Baruch, where borh apoca ~
Jypric seers receive foreknowledge of their assumptions. In the seventh vision of 4 Eua, God tells Eu11 to make preparations for the end, and reveals his fate to him: 'lay up in your bean che signs that I have shown you, the dreams that you have
.and the interpre~tions rou have heard; For you t:batl be taken up hor:n among hum:tnldnd. and hencefonh you WU lh·e with my Son and with tbosc who au like you, until the rimes are eoded.... Now, therefore set your house iD order. and .ceprove your p~plc; comfon the lowly among th.rot, :and instruCt those tb.at arr w~.' ( 4 fu• 14.8-9, 13 NRSVJ
$CC'O,
The author of 4 Ezra considers thjs seer ro be worthy of equal d igniry to Eoocb and Elijah ('those who are like you'), being kepr in the presence of the Messiah ('my Sou'} until the end of rime. Ezra asks permission w write down the revelations he has rcc;cived, and Cod 'ells him to write for fo ny days. Both Lohfink and Zwiep see in this pattern a signi6<:ant an-alogy to the: L.ukan asctnsion storit'S (see Acts 1.3). uw Ezra's assumption is narrated in an ending to 4 Ezra 14 found in the Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Arabic versions."11 h reads: 'At that rime Ezra was caught up, and taken tO the place of those who are like him, after he had wrirrcn all these things. And he was called the Scribe of the knowledge of the Most High for ever and ever.''" As already noted, 4 Ezra 4.10 ('until chc times are ended') suggests that Ez.ra•s time in heaven i!> limited until hi$ eschatological retu.rn. 1n 187. J.K. Elliott, The A.pocryph.,d New Testam,.r~t: A Collection of Apocryphal Christitln l,.itndture in tl1f English TranJ.Id.liOn. (OxJ()rd: Cl~ rendon. 1993}, pp. 11<4- JS, .summarir.es the Arabic text; for tbc Coptic, sec-S. Mort'nz, D~ Cescb;chte 11011 )osf'Pb dmt Zimmermann (lU, $6; Btrlin: Akademie. 19St). The CotHlc text Cfrum wbicb it appean the Arabic was translated) dOtS nor contain the: references ro Sibyl :md 'rabith3; stoe F. Robi.ruon (cd. and ttans.~ Copri< Apoo-yphal GO
188. P..n<>n, 'Copri< Enoch ApO<J)'phoo', p. 242. 189. Lohfink,. Hitn!1ttlf4brt, p. 183; Zwiep, Asansiott, p. 72. 190. M.E. S«onc, Fourth E.ua: A Commnataryf.m the &o.lt ofFourth Wa (Hennenei..a.t Mintw!apoli': Fonreu, 1990), p. 4•1: 'the textual cvidme< is adequate to show that the conclwion of 1M c.ht,ptcr i.s part of tbt origlnal rext•. 191 . Trans. NRSV, i.n te:n~tical OOk tO2 &d. 14.48, £ua•s d~th iJ dcKribc:d in Glt. Apoc. Ezra 6-7. 192. See M.E. Stone. •eoMreooe: and l.n~istcnq io the Apocalypses: The Cast of "Tlu: End" in 4llzra',]BL 102 (19831, pp. 229-43 1240).
Assumption in Antiquity
81
Similarly, 2 Baruen, and char he will be able ro shut the heaven& with a word. Then, •aftetward you will be lifted up into the place where those who were before you were li fted up, and you will be thr:re until I remember the world. Then I wi11 make you aU come, and you will raste whar is dearh' (LAB 48.1 ). m The similarities between Phineh..as and FJijah are ~viking, and although later tradition apparently identified the rwo. it is unclear whether this identification is present alread)• here. 1~ 2 Enoch 71-72 relates bizarre <:in;umsta nces surrounding t he bi_rth and removal o f Melchizedelc. The child, nephew of Noah. is translated to Eden in order to be spared from tbe flood (2 Erux;h 72, both recensions). Although a number of familiar themes occur here - a period o f forty days, a divine removal, and preservation for a future role (as a priest: 2 En. 71.29, 37, both recensions) - Melchizedek,s expected role is nor escharologjcaJ. 1 SO~
6. 111e "Righteous 0"'' in the Wisdom o{ Solomon Language drawn from Greek textS about the 8$Sumption o f Enoch (Genesis S LXX ere.) describes 'the righteous one' in Wis. 4. 10, 14. The rwo points of linguistic cont;.,t :.ue the- verbs E:Uap EOTi(.) and JUTCJTi&r)IJl. Gen. 5.2 1·24 LXX uses the verb <Wicco .UqpoOTTJo
•vap•crnc.>
193. Zwiep, Mansion, p. 74, 194. A.F.j . Klijn {trans.), '2 (Syriac Apocaly~ of) &ruch', OT1', pp. 1.615-Sl. 19$. OJ. H11ninston (traas.). · p~euOO ·Phil o', OTP, pp. 2..291-Jn. 196. So Zwit"p, AsumHm, p. 74, Soe for t"xampk Origen, in Joh. 6.1; .s« al.o R. Hayward. •Phinebu .. The Sa-!l'lt i$ Elijah: The Origin of a. JUbbin.ic Tr#ctition\ ))$ 29 (1978), pp. 22-38. A. Spiro, 'Th< As«nsion of Phin
Post-Morlflm Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
82
Mt-raTI9r}~o alsooc:curs in borh Gen. 5.24 LXX and Wis. 4.JO."'The language
does not refer ro Enoch, bowc:ve~ bur to 'the righreous one'.' " Wis. 1.16-5.23 contains, interspersed with oth~r mattrials, the story of •the righteous one' who dies as the victim of "the ungodly•, a nd then appears in a post·monem judgmen~"" Wis. 4.7 describes the early death of this paradigmatic figure, and v. 10 interprets his end as follows: 'being well-pleasing ro God, he was loved, and while IJving among sinners he was uanslared' (&UcipiOT~ 6&~ yt~~\IOS oiyami9rl
p. 96. 199. Sclunitt, &,.;;dcwng - Aw{Pt.RbftJe - Himmei(Rhrt.. p. 184; Kolarcik, Ambiguity of Ikath, p. 96. 200. Accorcl.ing to Seeley, this section of Wisdom i.s 'an ambivalent son of text: pan oarntive, p;tn phito.opbical trac;t•. Sec:k-y.• 'N.an.ative. the Rigbteow Man and tlw PIUI0$01)heto An A"'lyo;s of the Story of the Dil Wiodocn 1- 5', JSP 7 (1990), pp. 55- 78 (63). 201. See nlso [P!uurcb,) C.mu. Apall. t7. .202. In Nidtdsburg's opinion. 'tbc. fsingular) is ge~rk in 4.7; 4.16", but he' docs not explain his rt:asoning (Resurrearor., lmmortaliry anJ Etnn<Jil.i{t. p. 61 n. 40). 20.3. N noted abO\'t., the usu.JI verbs lor assumption in Hellenistic Jewish writingt art: IJ€TaTi&run and ci~Aa~. owing ro rhe.it U# in Gen. $.24 LXX :and 2 Xgs V.MO LXX, respec.:tivelr (Lobfio.k, HimRUI(alm, p. 73).' .Ap11ci~ is used for a$$U!Uption 01 removal fi:Yt times in the NT: Acts 8.39 (wnoval to anochtt 10C2tion); 2 Cor.. t2.2, 4 (vl"Sionary cKperienot, p<>$$ibly nor bodily); 1 Tbess. 4.17 Ithe: OL!Mimption of the !la.inrJ)' Rev. U.S (the assumption of the mak child). ! 04. Winston, The Wisdom o( S<Jlom()n, pp. H()-41; A. Sduoin , D4s 8J4C.h d~r Vlftsheit: Ein Kommhf.tar (WUrtbu.rg: &htet, 1986}, pp. 66-67; Kolatcik, A.mbigw.iry of ~th,
p. 96 n. 43. l OS. Compare l5a . .S 7.1· 2.. wberc the: righteous ooe is taken awa r &om unrigbt~ousMSs
(LXX CurO yQp
ll'pooc.)lfOU
Ca4ndos t\pTOt 0 61carQS't. Set Zwi.tp, ASU~~sicm, p. ""'· who
thinks the assumption language in Wltdom 4 refers one.
DQt
tO En«h bu.c
U)
cht tight.e()US
.~$S""'(Jiion
in Antiquity
83
and the verb omu&., for a hasty death (4.14). In these details, Wisdom 4
shows marked $imilarity with epitaphs and consoladon literature arising from r,he situation of an uncirnely death.lot ThU$ allusions to texts about Enoch and themes from Hellenlstic conso·
lation materials are combint-d her~ according to Seeley, this makes sense for an author working with two cultural •vectors•.207 Seeley documents further uses in Wisdom 2- S of top
the-pursuit of pleasure with aggressive wrongdoing•.1 in the epitaphs and consolation literature was always used negatively, in jewish thought assumption was understood only in rerms of divine blessing. Hence. when Wisdom uses apwa~()) to connote the divine pu.rposes behind the early death of 'tht righteous one•, the acxusawry tone usually directed ac che deity in such cases is absent. since the focus in Wisdom 4 is the good purpose of God. In this way che author applies 3$Sumption language, normally reserved for the living righteous taken up bodily into hea,'en, to the dead righteous one. Bcxause 'the righteous one• was pleasing to God, his early death is equated with the divine blessing o f assumption. lot Besides the consolatory function of assumption language in Wisdom 4, another issue at work in the story of 'the- righteous one' is immortality of the soul, as Robert j. Miller has argue.d. "' Even though Wisdom 2-S is not a linear 'narrative', the story may be: counted among "Wisdom Tales·· th.._t 'dramaticaUy demonstrate the ultimate validiry of wisdom/righteousness by nurating the vindication of righteou.s ~ges caught in seemin.gly hopele$$ situations, victims of the schemes of evil opponems'.' 11 In s to ries where the 206. Set, t'or instance, D. Wi.luro~ Tb~ Wisdom o(Sol()tnfOn tAB, 43; Gardtn Ciry. N'Y: Doubled.iy. 1979). p. 140; Sc.hmitt, £ntriidc:u ng - Aufowbm• - Himm~l(t.Jhrt. p. 188, who c:la&si6es Wii. 4.7-19 as consola-tion literature (p. 191); see aJ&o Schmitt, 'Der frilht Tod des Gercchteo nach Wdsh 4.7-19: Ein Psalmtbema in weisheitlic~r fassuog:', in F.-L HO$S(dd and E. Ha.1g (eds.), fr~ '"' ikr W.-iswng tks Hmw: Bc itra~ '.ll4r Th~olog~ tkr Pulmtn (fesuchtift H. Cross; SB~ 13; Stuttgart: Katholischcs Bibdwerk, 1986). pp. 325-41. 207. Seeley, 'Narrath•c, the RigbtCOU$ Man and the Ph.ilo.sopber', p. 76. 208. Steky, 'NarraM<e, du- Rightt'Ous Man and ~ Pbjlosopher', p. 68; Stt also pp. 71- 72. 209. Stt 0 . Georgi. 'J)c.t vorpaulinische Hymnus Pbil 1,6-1 J'. in£. Dinld er led.), z~jt ~mJ Gdchi< (F$$Chri(t R. Suhman.n; TUbing_~: Mohr S~bec::k. 1964), pp. 26~93 (274). Ste ~1$0 Lohfink. Himtn#l(~ p. SS n. 161 (though be thOU~ht th.i&referred to the righteOUS 'in gene:raJ'); KoUrci~ Amb;p;ty of ~4th, p. 9$. 110. R.J. Mil~ 'Immortality and Religious Identity in Wtsdom l...S\ in r~U$3-ig and C..astelli (Ns.), Rrim48fning Christian Orifins (mtsch.ri.ft 8.L Mack; VaJJey Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996), pp. 199-213. 211. MiUer, 'lmmoruliry and Rdigiou.'lldentiry', p. 209.
84
Post-Morlmt Vindicatian of jesus in the &ryin!fs Gospel Q
sage is killed, say$ :Miller, only post·mortem vindkation is possihle.lU Thu$, in his view, 'the immortality o f the soul in Wisdom 2-S is a wisdom tale solution to the problem of marryrdom~.1 1 3 However, the idea of the soul's immortality cannot account for the elevated stanas and role of 'tbe righteous one' in Wis. 5.1·5, where he appears bdor.e his etJtwhile pers~utors in a post-mortem judgment scene. In this passage, the ' ungodly' affirm that the righteous one is indeed one of the sons of Cod, one of the boly ones (5.5): those who once doubted that 'the righr:eous one' had Cod as 'Father' {Wis. 2.16b; cf. 2.13, 18) are made co eat their words. This reversal is of coune vindicatory; but if the expressions 'sons of God' and "holy ones• mean angtllc beings, ~the righteous one' has received a new exalted heavenly status.1H The way 'the righteous one' appea_rs at the judgment of the ' ungodly' abo points in this direction. The only ones who seem to be present here arc 'the righteous o ne' and his persecutors. N<, dlvine judge is there. but the 'ungodly' quake with fear before ' the righteous one', who stands 'with great boldnes·s before thos- who oppressed him' (5.1). The context of the story indicates that the 'ungodly' quake because 'the righteous one' has been exalted tO a forensic role in the heavenly coun. Wis. 3.8 and 4 .16·17 predict this tole. The latter text reads, 'the righteous one who has di~d will condemn the ungodly who are aliv~· (Ka TOlplvtfi 0£ Oikatos KOlJWv TO\is ~WVTg:ic which C<:>nnecced U$Umption and special eschatological fu ncdon.2u
212. So abo Nickel.sburg. Resuneaion.lmmonoliry and E.umal Lift, p. 66. 213. Millet, 'Immortality and ReligioUt ldtntiry', p. 209. C(. Nickels.bwg. R~ti1Tta•011. lmmort4lity a:J'Id Et4f'MI U{e, p. 88: '11iocc: immortality is a.Jn..ady the possession of the righteous man (in Wisdom 2-5], his death is viewed u hlt ~mpcion'. 2 14. Src N iciehblll'& R.esurrutlon. Jmmorw.lity tmd Eternal Life, pp. 60-~11 and n. 37. liS. So Georgi. 'Vorp.iu1in_i$Chc Hymnus', p. 274: "The Righteous Ooe tbt:rcfore hu not died, but what appears to be his death is in tc:aJhy his assumption, and his :tllSumption is synonymous witb his exal tation tO judicial and roy;al dignity and functi(m' {author~$ translation).
AJsumptron in Anliqujty
85
7. job's Children in The Testament ofJob Post· mortem exaltation is found in a unique use of assumption in the Testament of job (1st c. BCE o.r C£),21' where assumption language is applied to job's dead children. Sitis-. Job•s w ife.. implores Eliph
Mlj •a~~n •l<(i, o.J yap .Upl\om Ta na•ofa!JO'J, hn•oli ilv•M~~oav ,;; oUpa·voUs UrrO TOO 6ruuovpyoU ToU ~aaaAEQS. •oo nOt uouble yourselv« in vain. For you will not find roy children, since they were taken up into heaven by the Crearor their King.' (T. Job 39.11 ·12)"' Tho~ Ss children. ln this case, a spedal vindication ofjob•s children may alro have seemed appro· priate, since their death resulted from a malevolent being's interference.
216. According t() R.P. SpittJet (tr:.ns.), 'Testament ofj()b', OTP, pp. 1.8.29-68 ( 1.83~ be d.&t~ with more (:(:rtainty thilD this. 217. Ctcdt kxt from S.P. B.rook and J.·C. Picard (cds. )~ Test~ lobi; Apot:4iypsi.s Bar-uc:hi trM« {PVTG,, 1: leiden: Brill, 1967); trans. SpittLer. OTP. 218. So also CavaUin, Life After Death, p. 161. 219. See also Spittl~c. 'Testamesu o( job•. p. J.868 n. ( (t.ext
34), the tCJCt (:I.OD0t
86
Post-Mortem Vindicatinn of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q As$umption in Early Christian Literature
The main te.xts for consideration here are rbe Lukan ascemion narratives (Lk. 24.50-53; Acts 1.9-11} and some later legt1tds conceming the assumption of saintly Christian figures. As might be expected, Chri5tian sources tend to combine assumption language and ideas from bmh Jewish and GraecoRoman milieus. I. The llsunsion (Assumption) of jesus aecording to Lulu
The author of Luke-Acts depictS the departure of the rlsen Jesut into the heavenly realm as an assumption (Lk. 24.50-53; Acts 1.9-ll),ut Lohfink i howcd the numerous linguistic and forma l similarities with :usumption
narratives from both the Greek and jewish traditions.222 These include civa.l.a~!l«~~ (Acts1.2, 11; also Lk. 9.51; Acu 1.22),"' thelarewell setting,
cbe mountain, the cloud, subsequent worship or praise, confirmation, and the fo rty..day intetval. 214 The.se details a rc welJ established. What is less certain is what Luke intended to convey with this post·re.surrection assumption. The separation of resurrection and assumpdon is cerrainly significant: it suggests that Luke thought the two motifs carried different theological meanings. Yet the two a re not mutually exclusive, at least not the way Luke has structured things. us Although the resurrection fo r Luke has other chris-tologica1 •results', Acts 1.11 shows that for Luke the ascension (assumption} ol jesus installs him in heaven 10 await his eschatological
221. The wocds w;oll:wt~Pf'rO cis- T(n, ¢\,pall011 (Lk. 14.51) art' absent from "• 0 it s)" and 11pocnMif}oavn~ oUTO~o~ (24.52) are absenr from 0 it sf. I( t.hc::se w(IC'ds w~re nOt origi~J, then U.. 2o4.SO..S3 did noc describe an as.swnption bul a withdrawal at the mel of a resurrection .tppearance. For ttxtqamtr#, pp. 29-Sl, and Ehrman, Ort~ C..cmupticm ofScripture, pp. 227-33 (both a.rguing for the originality ol the short« text); and A.'W, Zwiep, 'The Text of lhe Asansion Narr.uives (luke 24.50-J; Am 1.1-2, 9-11)'. NTS 42 ( 1996), pp. 219-44 (arguing t'or ~ tonget teXt). 22.2. Lohfink, Hlmmd{altr-4 pp. 74..79; $C'C: also P~nons., D~partur~, pp. Jl.S-49 (on Acu 1.1-11}, and Zwiep, Asunsion, pp. 8~117. 223. The verb ci\104>Epc.:a (Lk. 24..51 ) ~n a.bo be includod, a$ well as i noi~ (A«t 1.9). Loh6nk noted that otbcf a»umpfjoo vcrl>s,
but Acts 1.9 (Koi ~.,CAn VniA<4'cv oVr<w GnO TWv c)+&a.A~o~~v o.VTWv} ~ggr:sts -something a.long similar li.oot. 224, loh£ink. Himmcl{ahrt, pp. 74-79; also Zwiep, Asunsi
Assumption in Antiquity
87
revtlation as the coming Son of man.22' Most commentators agree on this, though the point is argued most forcefully by Zwiep, who contends that luke·Acts must be read against the 'biblical-jewish raprure-preservation paradigm' (with its connotation of an eschatologjcal role) rather than the 'Cracco-Roman rapture stories' (which normally suggest apotheosis). 1 This is imponant for Zwiep's a nalysis of another central question for the Lukan ascension stories., that of the function of assumption in relation to Jesus' •exaltation'. Lobfink and others have argued that Luke•s ascension stories ccaJiy are rhe narrative expression of an idea that is in other texts connected more directly with j esus' resurrection, that is, his exaltation.21' Z wiep, in reaction to this~ argues that according to the Jewish 'paradigm', the end result is not 'an act of enthronement or apotheosis', but 'preservation to fulfil some task in the end time'. 21' At issue here is the locus (chronological and rheological) of jesus' exaltation fo r Luke. Lohnnk drew attcndon to texts such as Acts 2.33 and 5.31, which s uggested to hi m that there is a distinction for Luke berween resurrection and exaltation. 1 l0 In re-sponse, Zwiep not o nly argue5 exegetically fro m Luke a nd Acts~ but aJso maintains thar his sharp form~drical boundaries between the jewis h and Gre
z'
226. Lohfink~ Himm,lfahrr, p. 138; Parsons, D~tl'tuu, p. 144 (though wit hout tO Haufe, 'f.ntruc:kuog und esdlacok>3i.u:he Fun.ltti<m•); Zwiep. As<:hrsiorr, pp. 106-7, 168-69; and Zwiep, ' Auumptus ~t in caclum: Rap~~ Heavenly Exaltation io & rly Judaism and Luke·A~.. in F. A'·t'mllrie and H . t~htenberscr (edJ.t, Au{mubung - R.e-su"~dion: 'JlM_Fourth 01Jtham-TUbingm Reuarch SympoPum (TUbingtn: Mohr Si
uadirioo is •ital for undc:rstaoding the storice• 'readcrlr possibiJicjet' {199). 228. Lohfink, Him..,/falm, pp. 272-?S. 229. Zwicpt "AuumpruH st', p. 348; .see aJ110 Zwicp. ASU~~Sion, pp. 194-9$. 230. Lohlinl<. Hi.,.,../f.bn, p. 272. 231. Zwkpt As<.msion, p. 196. 232. Zwiep. 'Assumptut es:r>. p. 345, connect.in,g ir with a future role ratbcr dun a prneot state.
88
Post-Mortem Vindicalion of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
2. Assumption Language itt Other NT Texum Some standard assumption motifs occur in the description of the disappearance of Mc»es and Elijah from the scene of jesus' uansfigurarion (Mk 9.2·10; Mt. 17. 1·9; Lk. 9.28-36): the obS<:uring cloud (Mk 9.7; Mt. 17.S; Lk. 9.34}; and ino.·l5ibility lartguage (Mk 9.8, oUKhl oU~iva el&,v; Mt. 17.8, oVIS~vo: El0ov). For Mark and Matthew, rhjs suggests that Moses- and Elijah are figures who had experienced assumption at rhe end of their eanhly
careers, o.md who leave this scene in the same manner. But luke does not use •not seeing' language for the disappearance of Moses and Elijah (Lk. 9.36; compare Mk 9.8), focusing instead on the presence of jesus, wbo 'was found alone• (s:\rp!&rl' ll')ooUs 9.36). This is an interesting revt:r$31 of the typical 'not finding' language (as in Gen. 5.24 LXX) <0 suggest that the 'day.s of his assumptiony (TCxs ~t~Epas Tiis cXuaA~*c..lS athoU} were not yet being fu)fi)Jed (Lk. 9.51 ). In Luke's parable of Lazarus and the rich man {Lk. 16.19-31), the rich
,_.ovos,
roan died ;~nd was buried. but Lazarus died and W:JS carried off into heaven
by angels (c.lmve)(tl~val ctiTOu UrrO T00v CtyyiAoov. v. 23).n4 What sort of remov~l is this? Nollotnd rh inlcs this is 'a special translation to heaven, somewhat in the tradition of that of Enoch ... and Elijah•.us Angelic esCQrt is commoo in narratives of soul ascent, but nor in assumption stories; and in soul ascent narratives t he burial of the body is usuaiJy narraced.m Joseph Fitzmyer suggests chat since U.urus- was ' left unburied by human beings, he was carried off by heavenly beings'."' Although the fare of the body of Lazarus is unclear~ Wisdom 4-.5, whert assumption language is appljed to
the dead rigbteous ooe, might clarify the maner. Both. sources use assumption language to contrast the different faces of the c haracters: in Wis. 4.1()..19,
233. Acts 8.39 (rhe Spirit snatching away Philip to A:zotus) and 1 Tbess. 4.15-17 (the il5$umption of those ali,·e at Cluist's coming) will not be- consider~ here, sjna ocitbn text ~-ribt!l individwl :wumptioo uor at the end of :1. person's life. The p<mibiljry thar Muk's empty romb s.tory (Mk 16.1·8) wa$ ()tiginaity ;n anumptlon scory was proposed by ttlas 8idcermann (•oas ltttc Crab'), and will be explored in rtlation to out eonelu•ions about Q 13.35 in Cha~r 6 below. 234. Lob£flk. 1/immtl{ahrt, p. 42, noted the sem2ntK: proximiry of :and irs c:ouapOsite lo[Qls to otber asswnption t«minotogy. Luke uses 0\IO+fpc.J (Lk. 24.51) for jtw!l' a!$Umption. besides 0va).al.l~clw.> :tnd reJ:ared urm:s (Lk. 9-.Sl ; Act$ 1.1, l J, 22). -For
*'pc.l
awo+ej)C.), set Chariron. Chae.r. 3.3.
235. Nolland, Ltdte 9:21-18:34, p. 82. 236. Ste, fot e:x;ampk, T. A.bt. (A.) 20; T. Abr. (B) 14; T. job $2.-53. Se~ alsoloh.fink, Hinlnf#I(Qbrl, pp• .SJ--54. 237. j. Fiumy«, TIH Gosp'l tu.eording to LuU (AB, 28-28A; 2 vol:$~ New York: Ooubledt~y, 1981- 1985), p. 2.1JJ2.. Fo r the idea ol angelic escort. Fittmyer cite$ Hennas. Vis. 2.2.7, Sim. 9.27.3; T. Ash. 6.4-5. A similar i-dc:a m:ty lurk behind the impersonal CnJC:tlToiJOIVin. l2.20: 50 M.D. Gou.ldet, w~: A Nnv Pllrdd.igm (JSNTSup) 20; 2 vols.; Sbccffidd: jSOT .Prcss., 1989), p. 636; Crundm.tnn, Ewnt~IUim Mdt Ld~ p. 258. See a~ K. Grobe!, •• ... Who"' N•m< Nc..,.• •, NTS 10 (19641, pp. 373-82 (378).
u.
w.,
89 assumption language is uS«! of the 'righteous one' while t he corpses of the ' ungodly' are di•honoured; in Lk. 16.22 the rich man receives the normal treatment (burial) w hit~ Laurus rtteivM a special honour - pc:r·b:ap~ btt.aust' (as in rhe Turammt of Job) proper burial wos not pouible for him. Rev. 12. 1· 6, 13-17 describes a conUicr between a woman and a dtagon who appear in heaven. The woman gives binh co a son who is "snatched away (~prroo9rt) ro God and to his throne' before the dragon con devour him. Messianic language drawn from Psalm 2 describes the child (Rev. 12.Sb). The text thows some similarity to a rabbi nit tmdition about the assumption of rhe Mmiah as a child (m. Ber. 2.Sa)."' If the rexr as it stands refers ro the ascension of Jesus. ic is unusual that nothing is mentioned of his life or death and, moreover, that dte assumption app(ars mocivared by the threat
o£ the dragon. "l'h.e rcn of the taJe does not dc.scribe a return of the mcsslan.ic child, a lrho ugh his future rule of che oations is mentioned ( 12.5). Probably, u some commentators have suggested, rhe aurhor of Revelation incorporatts a Jewish rr:adition to whic:h he gives his own Christian inttrpretation (wbic:h does not. howevt.r, rt.move aJI it:S anomaliest.m
J. E.arly Chmtuzr• lnstanus of .U.umption In two nrly ChrUtian t<xts, rhe body of the murdered Zechariah di>appars in a post·monem assumption. This Z«bariah. the f01ther of John the Baptist, appea rs to be confused with another Zccharlah who w~,s muidc:rcd in the t<mple (2 Chron. 24.20-22; Q li.Sl ). In the l'rouvang•lium o{ james (late 2nd c:.),-Uo Zechariah is murdertd at Hc rod~s command bccaust John hod etcaped the slaughter of the innocent$ (Prot. }as. 23.1 -9). Others enter the sanctuary and find Uchariah'$ blood (turned tO none), but not his corpso: •ai TO ltTr.3~a cuhoil ovx t~po• (24.9). Ronold Hock susgests rhac the murderers disposed o£ the body 'in a n unmarked grove• ,u• but the text itself docs not attempt any rationalizing explanation, :u some Graeco--
Roman a5Sumption reports do.!u Tbc dis.appearancc language suggests that U:ehariah's body was taken away by God (after his murder).w What happened to Zechariah's body it clearer in the Apocal)•f>u of P4ul (late 4th c.).l..,. In a sc:cne which onJy survives in Coptic, Paul meets john 2JI . S.. L<>l>liM, 11.....1{4/,n. pp. 69-10. L<>ftMI< diotd idoo;, 2 &rt. 30. t. We me tat 0 ~.t~Kk-u ( ICe a:OO ZMcp. A.sc~. p. n n. 2). 239. Clvtlrt, ..-,p.U21;Aua<,~p. 2.4iU. 240. IU'. Hod. Th< "'f....., C<>
eo,.,,..,
Chariton, Cha~. J.J. 2._.. PJikltt, Apocrypb.J/ New 1'est4ff'Wnt, p. 6..4.
90
Post·Mortmt Villdiauion of jesru in the Sayings Gospel Q
the 8apriSl, his father Zechariah, and Abel (paired wirh Zechariah in Q 1t.S 1).1'1 ac,hariah says to Paul: 'I am he whom rhcy killed while I was prnenting the offering to God; and when the angels came lor the offering. they carried up my body to God, and no one found whe.re my body was t~ken'. 1~ Like rhe Prot~vangeli~tm ofjtJm~s, rbis source uses •oot finding" languasc, but makes explicit bow Z«hariah was assumtd after he died (rhe use of angel' is reminiscent of Lk. 16.2.3 ). Neither source, howeve~ explains why Zecharia.h's body was removed, or wh:n his post rnonem Status waa. According to $0me versions of the 1\cts of john {c.Jrd c. I),'" the apostle John exptrienced a post-monem assumption, a legend which arose possibly owing ro jn 21.20·23. In most vet$ions of the account of John's death, his disciples dig his grave, he climbs in, removes his garments and lays them down as if they were bedding, and prays some words of far.ewtll and chen lies down and gives up his spirit (1\crs oflohn l ll · IS). Augustine roporcs a rradirion that the: apOstk Weribcd in both namuive (from c.Sth c.) and homil
24J. The murdered Abd, also mentioned in Q 11.51, apptrtndy re..~h··ef a.n f$Chno· losid cooccrnlng IUs anumprion exi~t~.. 2~. Trona. Ellloct.II/>Ol,.J. N""' T..-.-, p. 644. 247, K. Sd.lltrdidt (u-an..~ ' Th< Act. ol john', ;, W, ~ («!.~ NnD T r - ~ (ln... R.M. WibOb.; J..ouH,o;llc """""""'"'John K.>o.. !'CT. cdn,l!t91·1"J ~ pp. LU2-209 (ISS~ 241. Sdlllud.', p. 20<1. 24,, S.. SchllcNidt. 'Aas of lobo', pp.l04-J:,.. obo J.D. Kactdl, ' Lc t6lo de. I<= b;bhq.... dono Ia p:nbc ct .. clmloppo £obrocck, " "" <>rip ws dr Ia Dornr#- .U t. VWrJr. 1tMJes m.torlqou n~r l4J trilditiofts or~ (Colkctr:d Stud~ 472; ll:roolc&Jd, VF: V1rion.lm1 1.9,5); S.C. Mjmouni, /)onnitif)rt d ~mpt;c. h Marie: hittolr~ Ms trt~diliOrU ~imn.u (TbeolQPe histor,qUIC, 91; Pult: Beaudx:,oe, 199S); 8.£. Oalry (f:d. and trant.), o, liN Dormitio, of Miry: Pmt, Pt~ttUt•·e Homil~ (Cr!$Wood, NY: Sc V1adimir't., 1998); tllion., AI'OCf'fPbtM N.w 'Tf'lt4~JMrtl, pp. 689-nl.
A..,...,,...,...,.
M
91
in some sources Michael or orher angels take her soul away.u-1 In many •ourca Mary's body is buried but disappean (oometimco afts,"" though som«imcs thtst t<xu serve an actiological purpose.us For the purposes of this survey, it is most imponanr that the
legends of Mary's assumption usc standard assumpcion morifs, often for the post·monem removal of her body, which results in her heavenly exaltation.
Frequenr references to Enoch and Elijah suggest Mary's tnd wu eoMidered to be in keeping with rradidonal characterizations of assumption.1S' The Llf• of Symecm the Fool (7th c.) by Leontius of N.. polis nan:;~tes an empt-y grave scenario as well.257 While Symeon•s body ls being carried off 10 burial in the strangers' cemerery. a person convened under Symcon,5 preaching hears heavenly mU$i-c: from within his houK. but looking out StU only rwo men carrying Symeon's body (PG 93.174"d-174Sa). He goes and buries Symeo11 in the strangers• oemeury, but when othe.n hear about the huve.nly mu&k. they run to the grave to exhume the body and give it I more fitri113 buraal. '8ut when they Op
l$ 1, A• in, for iNh.ncc, a homily aruibukd to bodiua of R0«1c (I.UIU- RobitbUI'l, Coptie Apocryphol Cos~ pp. 2~ 1); and in v,t, Gt. 1982. F. Mann-, LA rlrit tU 14 Do,.ltiOft d. ~~rk (V.:tiun gnc 1912): contribution d l'hlld1 '"' otigiMI tk l'exl~~ clmft1e'IM (Colkato m.aior, Sructum 8ibl.icum Frtn¢iscanum, .lJ; Jerutakm: franci8Can, 1989).
2J2. s~.for iluttn¢e, the 'Et.nhym.i.Ac History', ~o interpolation in a bomlly of j ohn o( cr-a111. O:dey, Dormition, pp. 224-26. 1bt Coptic tn.dilton mainttitu a longer interval berwctn Mary't drath a.od bt:r corport2J assumprioo; !let Elliott. ApocrypNI Nn4~ T•stllmtftt, p. "1. 2.S3. Mott Crtclc. namrive tQUIUS (e.g.., VaL Gt. 193lJ and one Syriac sourct detcribt sueh a~CCNrio: lot thf s,.n.c 'ObscqWcs·, S« W. Wri.gbr (N. and rrana.), c;.o,._tnbfaioNs to the A~~ l..Jin'i~tMr~ oftbe Nne Ttst4mnrt (Loodon: William• & Norprr,. JiltS•, pp. 42-oSI. 254. 1ltU;,up<...ty ...to<~ by the a.,..U.. in 1'$. M•lilo, T r - " -2 (tranL flhon, Dam.ucw~
256. lu io the Syriac 'Tnnsina' documenr (tnns. W.;,p." C...~ pp. IS-14): aNI u \A hocaihcs • tttibuud co ~ubos of Uriu and A.ndrtw of CrC'tc {Oaloty, Domti:iot.., pp. 7.. aod 109).. tb. Holy Fook r.-m.,·, 'L•f•' ood U.. '-""A.,_ Oty 257. S.. O.l(nq<~ (lr.nslormadoo of tbt O auic:al Huiug, 2S; Bttbley. CA: VnivtftJcy of Callfomia Press..
s,_,..
1996).
2st. Crcelc text £rom L Ryden, 04s Ubm du h1iJig~ N•rr.,. S.)I'MO" rot~ Lromtw &.IOn 'Nupolll (Ac:u Univc-rslutis Upc.alieosis~ Srudia Gra«a UpNlieO&II, <4; S10
92
Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
of Symeon (as the body of Jesus) has disappeared from the grave:, that is, it has been taken up into heavcn.' 1" This story is interesting because Symeon knows of his death and •glorification• (by post·montm assumption~ in advance (1744b), and also because after his death he has a special place of honour before the t hrone of God (1748a). FinaJiy, according to some late writing-s, the penitent malefactor with whom Jesus was crucified (lk. 23.39-43) apparently also experienced a post· monem assumption. In the Descent into Hell text associated with the Gospel of Nicodemus t5th-6th c.), the ut~named thief enrers Paradise, carrying his cross on his shoulde~ and joins Enoch and Elijah to await the entry of all other righteous on.. (D-.e. Chr. ad In{. 10.26).""Thi• could imply that he {like Enoch and Elijah) was assumed - a fter, however, he d ied on the cross. This is clearer in the Na"ative of joseph of Arimathea (a medieval legend: the earliest manuscript is 12th c. G reek). Joseph, collecting the body of Jesus, 6nds that the unrepcotaot thief•s body h.ad the: appearance o ( a dragon~ but rhe body of tbe orber- here called Demas- could not be found (Narr. ]os. 4 ).UI
Implications A number of results significant for the study of Q 13.35 arise from this survey. First, it was noted that disappeotrance (Or invisibility) is an a lmost ubiquitous correlate to as-.su rnption both in the Graeco.. Roman and in the j ewish traditions. A number of sources used language similar to that found <16•• a1hov £n); in Q 13.35 (oU 1J1i l6nti ~t): 2 Kgs 2.12 LXX (05 ,:,~en ow~a'fo;, Rom. 27.5); Lucian (ou llli• ic.lpcXTo yt, Peregr. 39); al•o Mk 9.8 and Mt. 17 .8 ([oUKiTtl oUc5iva lilOov}. In addition, 'seeing' language was used to describe the exalted status of an a""umed figure (iOOII1't$, Wis. 5 ..2; d. Wis. 2 .17-20), and to connote the eschatological rerurn of figures who bad experienced assumption {4 Ev-a 6.25·26). This is significant beca use, as the temporal i~-dause indicates, the disappearance or abstnce of jesus in Q 13.351ook$ ahead to a reappearance or return. Second, instances of post-mortem as-sumption were highlighted in the
oo<
Graeco-Roman, Jewish. and latet Christian traditions. This i.s significant in order for assumption to function 85 the means of Jesus• post•mortem vindication in Q. In Greek thought, the disappearance of a corpse (Aeneas, Memnon, Arls:teas of Proconnessus., Akmen.a}, esptclally £rom a tomb or
2S9. L. Rydm, &mnf:ungcn %)ml Wbm Ms ~iligcn N4rren Sym4!t>n von LulnJios ~ Nupolis (Acta Univuticatil\ Upsalien$ls1 Srudi~ Gt:aeca Upsaliensit, 6; Sux:khotm: Almqvist lie WiltS
Mswmption in Antiquit)l
93
funeral pyre (Huald<S, P..ottus, Achill«, Callirhoe), sisnilkd auumptioo. The person io quC$tioo was accorded honour as befieting a hero or an
immortal. In Jewish tradition the idea of pos;c-mortem assumprion is uou.suaJ but not impouible.ln panicular, assumption languagt is applitd to the Book of Wisdom'• murdered and exalted "righteous one', as the author applied topoi from Grttk consolation littrature and Jewish csc.hatological thought to rhc case of the righteous one who died too soon. A similar strategy may hove been at wotk in T. Job 39.11·12, although there it is not clear exacdy why Job's dud children were taken up bodily into hciJvc:n. In l:ucr Christian lirerarure, pogt-mortcm assumptions were narrated or Ztchariah. Mary, John the evangelist, and the penitent thief. Precisely how a 'post·mortem assumption' was understOod is unclear, though certain more philosophically sophisticated authors (Philo, Ovid) combine bodily disappearance with talk
of the dissolution or the material body in ordc:r to :avoid sayi"g the bucr part nature is take-n into the divinC' realm.
o( human
finatly, 11. few instances wt.re noted ln whK:h figures accorded a speda) role in csc:hatoiOBical thought (as judge, wimess, or recipient of heavenly knowledge) came lO be- the subject of assumption speculauon."62 1'bus
GUnrer Haufc•s thesi.s that assumption is a situ qu non for escharologk.al function works both ways in the &velopmt:nt of tradicion: those for whom assumption traditions were in circuJarion ca.me to have a prominent place in e!Chatolocical speculations (Enoch, Elijoh, Moses), and vie< ••= (Ezra, Boruch. Tabitha). Along similar lines, Callim•chus apparently could tallt about the deiliouion of Arsine<; II Philaddphos (who during her lifetime was given divine honours) using the idea that she had bctn 'snatched away
by the Dioskourol'. This Is of pOtential sigoiticance for Q because ir raises the possibility that assumption language in Q 13.35 might be a socondary cxpl11nati011 Q( the belief, evident ei$Cwhcrt in Q, that jcfUI would rctu.rn as the Son of man or Coming One.
262. Socucthh~ •imUa.r was nowJ in n:5pC(;t of tle.r.akk:s and Al'$inoC U Philade.lpbos.
Chapter 4 T HE DEATH AND AsSUMPTION OF jESUS IN
Q 13.34-35
This chapter explore$ the idea that the diuppe;ullnC< language in Q 13.3S explains the belief in jesus• return as the Son of man. This is parti"u.larly important for Q•s (lite.rary) answer to the problem of the de.ath of J~us, a problem which is within the hori.z.ons not only of Q but of this sayiog in panicular, for it connect.s the ~jection of tht speaker by 'Jerusalem~ with his coming disappearance and rerurn. Thus assumption language in this saying
provides a: basis for undel'$tanding how the •post-mortem vindication• of Jesus is undets[ood in Q, particularly because here assumption is explicitly connected with Jes-us• special cschatol<>gical function a.$ the Son of rna~ but also because assumption suggests divine favour and validation. On this bas-is even talk of the 'exaJr.arion• of jesus for Q is wananced, espec-ially in relation to sayings that suggest the ongoing existence in heaven of the Son of man (e.g. Q 12.8·9).
The Reconstruction of the Saying There a re $0me minor differences in wording (noted below ill underlined text) between the versions of Q 13.34-3S given in Mt. 23.37·39 and Lk. 13.34·35, lew of which have any significant bearing on the saying's intt..-.
The v.rbal differ.nc:e. may be noted briefly. Mt. 23.37 gives the second aorist infinitiv~ of !ntovv6:yw, while Lk. 13.34 gives me 6rst aorist. Ac.cording
to F.D. Weinert, the Sepruagim tends to use second aorist active forms of auv&yc.l and this verb, a usage reflected in Luke and throughout the 1\'T and whic-h Luke would not have. aheced had it appeared in his source text~ 1 In Matthew, the verb is repeated (lmauvayoo), but Lk. 13.34 is elliptical.' A sc-ribal error on the part of either evangelist could explain another minor difference: Matthew bas the neurer plural vocola ('nestlings') bur Luke has the fem ini ne singular vnoooav ('nest', or 'brood').' Steck thought Luke's wording original, arguing that 'nt$r is more suited to the wisdom orien· tation of the saying (citing Sir. 1.15 LXX).' Matthew's plural could also be a secondary adjusnnenr to rhe plural TO: TiKva.s Finally, in light of the
Lukar\ preference £or SauToU,6 Manhew's posst$sive pronoun may reflect ch~ original Q wording, though this is of little significance for interpretation. Mauhaean redaction o f Q 13.35 creates two more differences between Matthew and Luke: the addition of iprwos (v. 35a) and cl:n' apn (v. 35b). There is t extual uncertainty regarding EP'liJOS' in Lk. 13.35, but the manuscript evidence is suong for its absence and the addition can be explained as scribal harmonization to Mt. 23.38.7 Ma tthew probably added it to Q iJI allusion to Jer. 22.5.* Matthew also adds O:rr' Cxptl (a Mauhaeanism},' here and in
1. F.O. Weitl(rt~ 'Luke~ the Temple ~d Jesus• S~yioQ about Je:ruulem'• Abandoned House (Luke 13<34-35)', CBQ « (1982), pp. 68-76 (72);""' alsoCbrist,Je"" SopbU., p. 131, ind Hoffmann, Studien, p. 111 i d. Sieck, lsrfld, p. 48; Garland, Jm.pai<m, p. J 81 ~81 . 2. Skc;k, /f:racl, pp. 48-49 thinks Matthew ~lis io the ellip~-i-.. J. So SDAG. <4. Stec:lt, Jmu.l, p. 234: d. Hoffmann, Studi.en, p. 112. Sir. J.I$ LXX re<1ds: ~'TO Ov8pc;)tr(o)V 6r1J[At011 ai~ws ilo'Oootuotv ....
S.
Schu.la, SpruchqMelle, p. 346.
6. S.:hub, Spn.ti>qu R.H. Gundry, Matrh~: A Commn~tary <m His H"ndbooJc for a Mi:ud Cb•~rcb Und~ PnHc:Hli()ft (G.rand lt~pid.s: E.:rdm<~ ftl, 2nd cdn.. 1994), p. •?l. Suggs thought thi.s shows the originality of ip~~~os sto~e the word :«rt$$t:S the ' captif'iJY' the:n:\e: pre:senr in other .acoounts o(Wisdom't r~jecrion {Wi.sdo'", p. 68 n. 16). Hoffm<~m'l tStNJien, p. t n) thinks the word ls a post· M<~tthaean g)O$s, sinct $0CDt: manuscriptS omir ir from Mattht'w u wdl. 9. So j .C. Hawkins, Horae Synoptiau; Cotttribrmmu to 1M Study of the Synoptic hoblcm (Oxfotd: Clartndon, 2nd ~dn, 1909), p. 4.
z.,,
96
Post-Mortmt Vindicatian of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Mt. 26.26, 64, to heighten che saying's eschatological impact. ' 0 Manhean redaction also explains the ycXp connecting Mt. 23.38, -39, I t but given that Sa is reJCtually uncertain in Lk. 13.3Sb, it is not dear wh~t conjunction link~ the sentence$ in Q. u Ma«hew and Luke also disagree on the placement of J.lli in rdarion to the ve-rb; Luke might preserve Q's word order, but this is uncertain (and makes JiuJe differe.nce). f inaJly, in v. 3Sb, Macchew has £ws av eiTTlJn and Luke has rhe more awkward ews ~~~~on ei1T1J-... Again Luke is tel(tually unceruin: only D preserves this reading (and some Old Larin and Syriac versions with the addition ~ ~~lpa), but if original ;r would explain mort easily than the other readings how the bewildering array of variants arose.O lf original in Luke, ~~&l On is most likely Q's wording as well, because Luke never uses an expression like this with a temporal condition, and the verb ~kw is hardly 'Lukan'.14 Matthew's version can be seen as a srylisric improvement; further, Manhew could have eliminated fi~il On in favour of the similar connotation given b)' the Matthaean Cur• CipTI. Thus The Critical Edititm of Q gives rhe following r<eonstruction of Q 13.34-35:
Q 13.3+35
(34)' 1epouoaAI}~'Iepouoa~~~. ~ cXrroKT&ivovoa ToUs rrp01has JCai ~~8o~oAoUoa ToUs 6:TTooT«~IJivous- rrpOs aUniv, TToocX.us r}96~f)oa
£movvaya.yelv TO ti~~:vo. oou, Ov Tp0nov Opv15 6mauvci~t T(fCxl) vooola auTiis VITO TQS rrripuyas. kat oUk r\&l.t)oa-... (35) iOo.i O.~i.Tat 0 ol•os u~Olv. J..iyoo •• ·~··· oU ,.ui ioqn ~·;.., !Iii~.. oniJEtllT)U" EUAOYTl~•vos 0 ipxOJ.l!UOS Ev Ov61JaTI ~ruplou. u A more difficult question, encoun tered above, concerns the original position of rhe jerusalem saying in Q. Ir has been often suggested chac Matthe-vt· retain!l the saying in itS original Q position. Early prOpOnents of this view thought that Q 11.49-51 and 13.34-JS o riginally stood together in a lost Wisdom document from which, according to Q, j esus is quoting (Lk.
10. Set van det Kwaak, •Ktag<', p. 164; Steck., Israel, p. SO; Hoffm2nn, Studkn, p. 172; Garland, lnJention, p. 20.S; Allison., ' Mart. 23:39 • Luke 13:3.Sb'. p. 81 n. 1. 11. See Hacnchen, •Mattbaus 23', p. S6p·an d(:r Kwaa~ jKJage', p. 163; Sttc.k, Israel. p. SO; Hoff'm.a.M. Studitn. p. t 72; Garland. l11ttntion., p. 20'7. 12. Myc.>UjJlv: ~·J "• Lpdt st;"iyco>litU~iv: 'J)'S Ml As 0 lt we 't' f 1·Um? b.t ayr". 13. See B.M. Mmser, A T,JCtual Comm~11tary ()n the Greek N~w Test.ttnent {Srungan: Dcu.tschc- Bibe~lbchaft, 2nd edn, 1994), p. 138; see also Robinson ~t a l.~ Critical Edition, p. 423. H. fivo oceWTences in Luke. Lk. 12.46 (Ql; 13.29 (Q); 13.35 (Q?); 15.17 tLkS); 19.43 (LkSJ; none in Acu. l.S. Robinson ec al., Cri.tiul E.di.tion, pp. 42()...23: double bracken indicatt" an uru:~rrain tttoosuuction, and the rwo ®ts i.ndieare rldt thete peth.ap~ was a ~j unt.:tion h~""een Xiyt.o:J and VIJill, but this (and iu rec:onstroction) i.s unteNain. Fkddermann, ltc«.>n#TUdion and Commentary, pp. 7()()..()3, age~ with tbc JQP reoonmuction.
The Death dnd Assumplion of jesus in Q 13.34-35
97
11.49 ~ Q: 6ti:lTOOTO K(IO ~ oo4>fo TOU 8toii E11T<• KTA). ltcannot be proven t hat Q 11.49-Sland Q 13.34-35 were derived (together or separately) from a pre.Chrisrian Vorlage. More important art the (WO arguments upon which was ba$ed the supposition of a unitary origin in a common source: fitS[, both sayings have a •supra~historical' perspectil't, aod so the speakcl:' mU$t be divine Wisdom in both eases;'' second, the common deuteronomisric theme of rejected and persecuted prophets means that the twO sayings must have been originally joined.'' The first argument is problematic on several coums. Naturally, an origina1 separation of the two sayings in Q is not ruled out by their similar perspective. On the other hand_, Haenchen's concern about the sayings' different 'hisroricaP pers-pectives" does not amount to a strong argument against their original unity; for as Robinson correctly argued, the: futureoriented view of 11.49 (a1Too-r.Aw, Lk. 11.49 ~ Q) is a device uood to depict past even[$ as fu lfilments of rhc divine plan." Even if a 'supra-historical subject' is required by the rrooaKIS r}&(ArjOQ in 13.34, A$y(t) V~'iv, which is characte
16. So mo11t influentially Bultmann, HiJtory, pp. 11 ~ ts. 17. So Robinson, ' Building Bloc;b', pp. 102-o6; Robinson., "Scquen«! of Q', pp. 251)-55. 18. Hacnc:ben.. 'MatthiU$lJ', p. 56; also Jatobsoo, First Gosp~t. p. 209.
19. 20. Q 14.24 21. 22..
Robinson, 'Sequence of Q', p. 244. 3.8b •whett john i$ $puJc in~J. and pmibly Q 19.U (Lk..) and (U:S) t ~ mastt.rs in the parabb). Robi!UOn, ' Building Sloc::lu'. pp. 104-06; 'S«Juenc;e of Q\ pp. 2$0-S.l . RobiNQn, 'building etock• '• p. 106; 'Seq\.Jence of Q'. p . 2$2. ~eeptiQrt$ are Q
Post-Morum Vindicqtjon of jesus in the Sayings GC>sf>el Q
98
- even unaware of the texu' spec:ifk allusions - 3 secondary joining If they bad originally been separa"' ..yings in Q. Or, as Hoffmann has put it, rhe correspondences nored by Robinson berween 2 Chronicles 24 and Q 11.49· 51 and 13.34·35 'show only that rhe rwo texts drew from rhe same well of me deuteronom.istic prophetic tradition'.tJ So arguments that similarities o f theme or perspective indicate that Q 13.34·35 originally followed Q I 1.49·51 in Qare not decisive. On the other hand, there is evidence of redactional work in the context of Q 13.34~35 in borh Marthew and Luke." Marthew has placed the Woes complex- wirh the Jerus~lem Lament as their conclusion - as jesus' final public speech {kc Mt. 23. 1), so that the abandonment of the house is first announced to the crowds (Mt. 23.3.9 = Q 13.35b) and then explained ro the disciples (ML 24.1·2). luke assoeiau. it with Jesus' journey ro Jerusalem (Lit. 9.51; 13.22, 31·33). Some think the catchword 'Jerusalem' (Lk. 13.33) is the reason for Luke's re..Jocation of the saying, u since it wo-uld have made J.ittle sense-in the Lukan context of the Woes, the meal at the Pharisee's house (Lk. 11.37, 53). But this raises the question why lu.ke would have moved the Lame:nr to this locatio~ for his redactional travelogue commen.ts could have been inserted prncticaUy anywhere." Jr therefore may be suggested that Luke added 13.22, 31·33 in order to make sense of the original Q location of the saying (that is, after Q 13.24, 26-27, 28·30), which he did not disturb." The question must be answered on the grounds of Q itself. In which location would the $eying have made better sense? Robinson notes that 'Q 12.2·12, ha'fing co do wirh anxiecy over being killed because of one's witness to Jesus, originally Oowed equally well' out of either Q 11.49·51 or 13.34-35, Qr even 1 1.47·48, rhe 6nal Woe, because all thre~ have to do with the same theme, the killing of prophers.u Hoffmann argues that Q 12.2-12, with its contemporary concern being the danger f.-aced by Jesus' followers, flows out of the Wisdom uying best of all because-its redactional
~J. P. Hoffm•nn. 'Q 1J.J4·JS, S«ond R,.poose', •ppeo.dix toS.R.Johnson, 'SS2, Q 13:3-4·35' (unpubljshcd database prepared for rM International Q Project Work Sessions,
19!14), p. J. 24. Set' Christ, jesus Sophin, pp. 136-37; Gatl.and.lntenJion1 p. 197; Tuckett, Q tmd
tht Hi#ory. pp. J7J-74. 2S. See, for instanct~ Bultm.a.on, History, p. 115; Harnchen, 'Manb.iill$ 23', p. -41, Robin,on suucscs We Lu.k.t't interpolation o( 13..U~33 'attempts co rcereau the eq:uiv;~lenr of the fitting Marthea.n conttxt' ('Sequence of Q', H9). 26. As Robinson puts it. 'o!\e h~• (i.n Lk:. 13.Jl·J3J '" insunce of tuke tod
27.
p. 258). HoffmaM, 'Sewnd Re~.-ponse', pp. s.-6; 110 a!Jo Kloppenborg. flo"'""tion., p. 228;
j:tcob$on. FirSI GotJHI, p. 210. 28. Robin.st)O, 'Seq~.N:t'K:e of Q'. pp. lSJ-5-4. Robinsoo thinb the Woes. the Wisdom '"7in& and tbe IAlnm< (Q ll.391>-<4, 46·48, 52 + l 1.49-.l I • 13.3+-35) together comprloe 'tbe cenu:al text for W Q rt
ooto the Q tradition' {l$4).
The Death and Assumption of jesus in Q 13.34·35
99
additions (ll.SOb, Sib) conremporize the soying for the Q communi ry, using the polemic against 'th.is generarion•.tt Q 13.34#35~ ln Hoffmann'$ view, has jesus as its speaker and controsts his rejection with the vindication expected at bjs coming as Son of man. Tbjs christOiogiz-ing tendency would havt" intertupted the flow ha d the Lament originally followed immediately after the Wisdom saying.» Q 13.34-35 a lso fits well in the Lukan order of Q: the exclusion faced by rhose who reject Q's message (Q 13.24·29) finds concrete ex pression in the jerusalem Lament, as Hoffmann notes,J 1 and is also paralleled in the following parable of the Great Supper, where those invited refuse participation in rbe escharologicaJ banquer. Reclining with the patriarchs (Q 13.28) has the eschatological banquet in view; and bringing in thost nor originaUy invited (Q 14.21-23) reealls rhe inclusion of Gentiles ·i n the kingdom (Q 13.29). Q 13.34·35 stands in the middle as a prophecy of the Coming One's judgment, although apparently the invitation to Jerusalem was still !tanding. T here is, therefore, good thematic cohesion between Q 13 .24-29 + 13.34·35 + 14.16·24.32 Ir seems unlikelr, had Q 13.34-35 originally followed 11.49-51, that Luke would have insened Q 13.34·35 precisely where he does, creating between pieces o f Q material new con nee· tions invisible to bis readers owing to other redactional work in Luke 1~14. Given these observations, lt seems more likely that Luke, and not Matthew. ha.! retained the lament in itS o riginal Q context: that is to say, Q 13.34-35 originally followed Q 13.24-29 and preceded 14.flll ]], 16·24." An observation concerning luke's redaction of Q 13.29. 28 corroborates this conclusion. Many think Matthew, in general, preserves better the original order and wording of Q 13.29, 28."
ll•al nolloi]] CxiTO ixvaTo~<>· •ai ooo~c:i· ~~OUOIV KQt ilvaKA•81\ooiiTal 11mi 'Aj3paix11•al 'loaax •al'i""C:,jl iv Tij 1\ao•;>..l'l' Too S.o\i, ((lill,.t•sJJ 6i
29.
Hoffman.o, 'Se:cond Response•, p. 5. Hof{JD3no, 'Sc<:ond RespOI'l$e', pp. 3-4. JJ. fioffnunn. 'Second Response•. p. $. 32. Also in favour o f thjs is c:be •house' imagery in Q 13.2+29 and 13. 35• (so ja~. Fint Go.t(H.l. p. 210). Re«ntly ~ph Vt:rheydcm. ('Killing or tht .Prophet$'. p. 9) noted tbcsc ~on~ti<ms but a rgued instead dlat Q 13.24-29 originaUy foUowtd 11.<49-S I + 13.34-JS~ oo this te3ding, in 13.3$b rept.nuoce comtS too ~te. and the Maret$" are denied entry (13.24·291. J J . The prnc:nce of U . 14.11 par. M1. 2.).12 in Q is dis-put(d, O'lainly beeauu of its· proverbial oaturc; s~ J.S. Kloppcnborg, Q Paralltls: S.,-opsis. Critie.sl Note$, dCAncord4na lfi)Uodatioo.s &nd Fppeoborg. &uwatint Q. p. 118). J<. S
JO.
100
Post-Mortem Vindication ofJesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
hil>-f(~S<)o.,oe,.
To i~c.l((upovlJ· oK£1 tOTcu oKAauo~Os
[[And many]] shall come from Sunrise and Sunset and re.:line with Abroham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God, bur ffyou will bell thrown out ((into che]J oucJ[er darkness]], where there will be waili~g and grinding of teeth."
Luke has made two significant additions tO Q 13.28 - th_e hearen: ·seeing' their exclusion from t.hc kingdom, and a reference to "all the prophets' - so that his version reads:
There will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob i!.ruU.U the proRheu in the kingdom of God, but you thrown outside. (Lk. 13.28) Luke's redactional additions to Q (underlined) are significant, particularly because Q 13.34~35 contains che same language: 'the prophetS', and Op6:w for a future 'seeing'. The je-rusalem Lament focuses on the re-jec.:tion and murder of prophets (Q 13.34) and Jooks ahead to a future seeing (after a time of invisibility) of r.he speaker, who presumably comes in judgment (v. 35). Lk. 13.28 predictS that the hearers would see themselves excluded from the Jcingdom and chc prophets vindic.ated in the presence of the patriarchs. It seems Luke, looking ahead to Q 13.34-35, redacted Q 13.28 to ooordinacc the themes of the cwo sayings mote closely. The presence of the future of ~""'in both Q ! 3.29 and 35b may have suggested this redactional assimilation, which would be very remarkable indeed if Q 13.34-35 had originally followed Q 11.49-51."
Tht Rejeaion of Jesus and the Abandonmtmt ofJerusalem The most signi6canr result of deciding in favour of Luke's placement of Q 13.34-35 in Q is that Je.us, not Wisdom personified, must be the speaker of the saying (although the Mauhaean position of the saying does not completely rule this out). This presems some difficulties, particularly given 35.
RobinM>n et ~ 1., Criti<"AI Edition, pp. 4 'l4-17.
This also augge&:ts Luke undentood Q 13.34·35- as MaHhcw did ... tl) refer to a fururt: tim<: o( judgment at tbc l'arousia, but reorienttd it, with the r«
36.
Th• Deoth and Aw.mrpticm of Jesus in Q IJ.J•·JS
101
rhr repeated appeals menrio(led in Q ]J.J4, bur ir also prrr.eou some important implicatioos for how .~i IIOU5 npOs au~v W115 probably suggesttd, as Robinson has argued, by
J,.
kobo....., 'l!uilding Blocb', pp. 104-C6; 'S
<40. The pramct or influenoe of Wisdom amOI\1 the ptopk prog.rtttivcly upaads in Sir. 2<4.10· 11: 6.nt her bome is in tbe u.bemad.t--. tbton Zion Cw. 10•, then jenanlem
•· II}, and finally •in an honoured people. in the portion of the Lo.rd' 'the beloved thy' «
•• • 12). 41 . For thk imagt.ry, see lkut. 32.11; P:u. 17.8; 36.7; Ruth 2.11; 2 8t~r. •U .J....4j .of Ur11 I.J01applied to Wi1dom, Jec Sir. 1.15; Prov. t6.16lXX, See Sttd:.lsrlj;tl• pp. 411-SO.
102
Post-Mortem Vindie<~tion of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
as standing in toncinuity with other rejec-ted messengers of God.'u The.
Jerusalem Lament has its SilZ im Leben ' in c.he rejccrion ..• of the messengers of jesus., which Q looked back upon•..u Tht' deute.ronomlStic uadition may have been piclced up as a way of theologizing the rejection of t he Q mission· aries (see especially Q 11.49-51, noting the eontemparizing 11.5lb),44 but Q 13.34·35 is more suggestive of Jesus' fate than that of the Q messengers. Jerusalem figures in the saying because Q consider. the speaker as one of those s.ent to, and rejected by, that c::ity. jesus• C}(ecution there, a fact of which the Q community could scarcely have been ignor:tnt, provides the b~sis for dte reference to jerusalem. A probJem, however, ;arises with the prindpa l clau5e of Q 13.34: ' ' . . Ta\ Tn:va ' rrooaKIS q'8'\. El\l)CJa nncvvaya)'£1" oou. Many commenrators, most in8uentially Buhmann, see trooci:Kt5 ~&eAflOO: as requiring a 'supra-bistoricaJ' subject. On rh_is basis, then, the pre$ent parcicipJes chroKTti vouoa and At8ofloAoooo refer deuteronomistically to the w hole history of jerusalem's (l$racl's) treatment of prophetS. If the whole history of l•rael is in vitw, then rroo01o5 ri8iAT)Oa cannoc have j esus as its spe-aker. H offmann circumvented this dilemma by propOsing that wbile t he participles might refer tO tbe whole history of Jerusalem, the often-sought-for gathering of its children 'describes rather the speakcr•s repeated attempts with respect tQ the ..children of Jerusalem• in the present'.'' This is difficult to reconcile with the (probable) historical fact that jesus only made one journey to jetusalem. Again, the w isdom tradition offers some clarificacion. While Q 7.35 describes jesus and j ohn as emissaries of Wisdom, other Q materials de-m onsuate a rather elevated wisdom christology: this is seen most .strongly in Q 10.21-22, where jesus is practically identified with Wisdom as the mediator of revelation, but also in Q 11..49, where jesus voices the speech o f Wisdom as the one who sends tht prophets (inroonAc:; ... rrmt\TOS KOl [cutOOTOAovs]; compare Q 10.3, a!IOOTiMw u~&s ... ). Here in Q 13.34 j esus speaks as Wisdom, reflecting the many appeals made through her emissaries and rejected by Israel but especially by the children o f Jerusalem as th.e perpetrators of his own rejection and death. Thu•, jesus does speak as a ·supra-historical' subject, a nd yet o ne whose own end is implie:it in the rejection of Wisdom by Jerusale,m . The combination o f the deuteronomistie tradition with the wisdom myth 6nds an e-xtrao(dinary development in Q 13.34: in Q 11.49 Jesus speaks on behalf of Wisdom, the one who sends the prophets; bur here he speak.s as Wisdom - precisely, as the emissary of WJSdom par excellence w hose rejection s ignifies the final withdrawal of Wisdom from her abode in ]eruu.lc.m. ~'
ioov
Hoft'm.al'ln,Studi4Nt, p. 174. Hoffmann, Studin~. pp. 179- 80 (author's translation). Ho((nuan, Studim, p. 179. 4$. Hof~nn.Srud'ien,p. 174. 46. C£. Suggs, WJSdom, p. 67, who thought Qhas 0(1( made the: idtnti6carion betwuo )...., and Wisdom 1ahhoush Mattb<w has). •2. 43. 44.
The Death and Assumption of Jesus in Q 13.34-JS
103
The deuterooomistic <;onnection between the rejection of prophets and the withdrawal of divin-e protection has already been mentioned, but a few remarks may be made here regarding Q 13.35a, aitTao 0 o1•os- upc:\v. The use of the passive shows that a divine act of ;udgment results from jerusale.m's continued impenitence and rejection of Wisdom•s entreaties. As Robinson has noted, 2 Chron. 24.2.0 envisions something similar: 'Because you have forsaken rhe Lord, he also will forsake yo u' (LXX: oy>:anAi rrtn, iYkaTa).til.(.lrt).41 In t.hat passage, the Temple is also referred to as ' house' (24.21; cl. Ps. 117.26b LXX), as iris in Q !3.35a." 'Your house' suggests the jerusalem temple as the locus of divine presence in Israel. That Q 13.35a begins with iOOU is significant. Nor only is IOoU the typical introduction
iooo
to a prophetic threat, but the word is used uniformly in Q to suggest a present state:'' Thus? v. 35a signals Jerusalem's present situation of being abandoned by God to desuuction, 50 which would have been understood as a significant eschatological event by the saying·'s tradents.u Bur this does not necessitate a post-70 setting for the saying. (Such a setting is, however, dear from Matthew's addition of iptlJJOS'.) lnst~d7 it may onlt reflect the turbulent times before 70,11 or indeed even catlier. As Kloppcnborg h;.s recently argued, knowledge of the Roman siege practice-of e-v oking rhe deiry before the destruction of a sacred site and/or its environs- evocat.io deorum - could lead to the conclusion that the abandonment of the temple was a possibiliry,n even apart from a •deuttronomiscic appraisal of current events. This setting lor Q 13.34-JS as a whole is e<>nfi.nncd by a dose el(llntinarion of v. 3Sb, which presents a reversal not only of jesus 7 rejection and death (using assumpcion language), but also (possibly) of jerusalem's presenr siruation of abandonment. 7
,,
•• '/ U 11 you ... •
1\IYCA> UIJIV:
Q 13.3Sb, lor a number of reasons, has been considered a tutning·point in the saying. Advoc::ates of a thoroughly sapicntial interpretation of the Jerusalem Lament had to acknowledge that something anomalous to the Wisdom myth is introduced in v. 35b, when the one who djsappears returns again at the acclamation of jerusalem. Furthermore, rbc stark declaration concerning the abandoned house (v. 35a} finds., a"-ording to ~omc scholars, a
47. Robinson, 'BuiJding Blocks', p. lOS. 48. See abo Q 11.51: "''"a:~~ ,.o.,j MI«O'TI'IPiov .:al wV oiKou (Robi:n.son et al.~ Critl't:41.l Edition, pp. 288-89). 49. See Q 6.42.; 7.2.5; 7.27: 7.34; 10.3; 11 .31·32.; 13.35; 17.23 (twi. .). SO. So Sreck,lsrM~ pp. 228- 29; Schulz, Spnubq..III, pp. 356-57. S I. So Hoflow>n, Sh
104
Post-Monetn Vindication of Jesus in tl>• Sayings Gospel Q
positive counterboalance in the possibility of a restored relationship between the people o f Jerusalem and their God when they finally say, 'Blessed is the Coming One in rhe name of t he Lord', Finally, the presence of the formula "ty(.) U~iv :.n the beginning of the verse is a clue of some kind o f shift, perhaps even to the hand of the Q redactor (sec also Q 11.S1 b). A good starting·point for the study of v. 3Sb, therefore. is an e.xamination of the use of the Myc.:J u~iv formula in Q. lt occurs in Q material (with Mauhew and Luke in agreement) founeen rimes, and in Q settings in either Man:hcw or Luke at least eighteen times. This means the fo[mu la t~.ppcars in aiJ compositional mara o f Q; this is not surprising, given how common it is i.n the jesus traditions.S+ The formula a lso occurs in minimal Q with a variety of C"Onjunctions, adverbs, or prepositional phrases. Marthew is iond of reformulating its Q occurrences according to bjs customary Cxt.~~v Ai yw UIJiv. which is a lso frequl!nt in Mark.s.r Luke's use seems SOm!!what more restrained. What is most significant a bout the formula is the fact that there. seems to be a consis·rcncy in its application in Q. The formula is characteristic: of jesus• sptech. and so it is used in tht concexr o f an ass.eve.rative or pronouncement of Jesus. Schulz argued that the formula was typical of rhe later Q material and that its fu nction was to imroduce not independent sayings but rather interpretative comments.'• In his study of the formula, Saro proposed a prophetic origin and application of Aiy(o) UIJi vF Klau~ 8-trger noted that it never 3ppears in a paraenetlc cootexr.·5' All these observations arc apt. Yet it appears rhar J..iy.iyw VlJIV in Q has john as speaker. He says. 'Do not (begin) to say to yourselves, .. We have Abraham as our father ", for I n~n you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones• (Q 3.8). john reve($es the hearen• claim on ancesrral privilege with the shocking snnemenr that such privilege could be extended, God-willing. to stones. Jesus• statement about the faith of the centurion (Q 7.9) also contains an a$p«t of t he marvellous (0' h)ooUs' i&aUIJamv) and a reversal of the expected: 'I te.U you, I have not found such faith in IsraeL' Similarly. Q 6.27 signals a For a discussion of the }WyCOJ ~iv formula in Q. partkutarly with refercnc:e to lhe recbctiQnooe.:rirical question of tM formula'S origin where: it (lo(;eu.rt in Q matetiaJ in only one of the cwo evangelists,~ Ncirynck. 'Recent ~vdopmcnts•, pp. 5~9. Neicync,k's conclusion: ' i t ap~.ars that in mo~t insuncts whetc the )Jy(o) U!Jiv formula is pecu.Ji:tr tO Matthew or Luke it can he a$tigned to M.atthea.n or Lukan red:a~cion. Q red.a('f:iOn is probable in 6,27 (?); 10.12; 11,S 1; 12,22. Other instances- in Q are more likely tradirioml' 54.
(p. 69). Ntityodt app:arendy omitted Q J,3.3$b from th.i$ short lis-L~ p. 66). SS. Mt. 31 times; Mk.14 times~ Lk. 6 times.
S6. 57. 58.
.Xbui>,Sp"'chqutlk, p. St. Saco, Q und Prophe#e. pp. 2.31-46. X. krger, Die AMctn Worre juu: Utu Unurtucbtmg zum Problem du I.Agil.im4tion itt t~poka/yptisdJer Rede (BZNW, 39; Berlin: de Gruytet, 1SJ70). p. 90. 4
The Death <1nd Asswnption of jesus in Q I 3.34-3S
lOS
rtversal: the Bea titudes clofe with an emphasis on ~rseeurion (6.22·23 1 ~veo
apan from what might bt a lar.r deur.ronomisric addition in 6.2Jc), but the following 1eaion on non-retaliation (6.27-33, 3Sc) btgins with jesus saying. 'But I tell you (... ),love your enemies .. .' (6.27). Along these: lines, Aiyc.J Upiv sometimes appears in Q with comparative forms or figures of speech: •] te:U you, among those born of women nonC' (is greater) than john; yet the least in the kingdom of [God) is greater than he' IQ 7.28); ' I tell you, it will bt more toleroble on that doy ( ... )lor Sodom [... ) than forthot eiry'(Q 10. 12; see also Q 10.14, Mt. 11.24); "But I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of t hese' (Q 12.2?); ' I tell you~
t·hcrc is more joy' over the one rhan over the nincry ..nine {Q 15.7). The uce of ).i yGt.> U~'iv may be classified according to how 'he statement it
introduces is related ro the pr·ccedlngcontcxt. In cheuset where t he Cormula occurs wi1 hin 11 major textual unit, or to use Schulz's terminology, where it inrroduca an interpretative statemem, Aiyw V~iv has a function an:~.Jogous lo Jyc..) Vuiv formula thou it contain• some surpri.ring Ot unbtlievable temark. As the following tables show, many of the uses of Myr.> u~iv in Q- even some Of those QUested by only one of the evangelists - arc advcrs.adve, inrroducing a sroatemcm of reversal, and most of its uses serve co highlight something unexpected or marvcllour, often using comparative forms or figu res of speech. Table 4.1 below shows the fourteen cerrain us~ of Al yw U)J'iv in Q, and Tobie 4.2 the other eighteen uses in the context of Q material. 1'hese tables sho w the additions of Matthew and Luke and a elaui6cation ol the contextual function of the formu la (adversative, coordin:ating, introductory, rcitcrarivc, reorienting). The last oolumn in each table gives a designation of the contcnu of the pronouncement which follows the formula: whc1her ir cotuains a rcvcnal (R), a marveUous or astounding statement (M), or a comparative fe<m or 6guce (C) .
.S9. For fXJmpk, }.lyw U.,iv signals a shift to anochcr cy-pe of maceriaJ tn Q 12.22 (if Lt.. l2."· 21 wu in Q); but in Q 7.26 ('Yes, 1 tdl you. and more than a propbct') and l l..!1b c·IYtNAmen). I a:IJ rou, it will be lrcquirtd) of that gtnt.ration'J. it introduees a parcnchcdcal aurc.mcnt cmpOuiUng or ~iterating tomf asp«t of rhc prcviow 4;onten.
106
Post-Mortem Vindi<.ation of jesus in lbt Sayings Grupe/ Q
Table 4.1:
~tyc.> v~lv in
Q
ML
u.
Co.tt• nNl ~
Co.tanb ofs.y.q
QUb
.l.?b'rOP
J.8b,ip
ed•uuci¥t"
RM
Q,.2?
J.44
6.l701M
Q?.~
S.JObci~~
,,,.
t..d•·truti.Vinttod«~otr
a,.,_natiV<J
•RMC
Q 1.16/,
ll. ,w:{
7.1,VOJ'
,.rcm.htflc.l
c
Q 1.l8a
IUb Ol!li•
7.lfla
inuodouorr
RMC
Q IO.ll
IO. Uci~
10.12.
C:()(Jfdisl'liiiJ
MC
Q 10.24
1.)..11 dll~,.yOp,
10.24 yr.ip
c:oordiaJdn&
MC
Q ll.Sib
U.UOt~l!•
U.Sibvo!
Jlf-lt'flf.hctiul
M
Q U.ll
+.zs a,o· roi:rro
12.%2&4 'Riinc
iou\lduc:cw,
M
Q 12.21
6.21 &'
12.17 6i
~~narlw
RM C
Q IL44
24.47 G>Ai•
u .... ~
coordiAanns
M
QU..SJ
S.lf O.,fl,. >.4'fC.IGOI
11.$9 110!
<:OO!ili-inc
M
QU..l1b
2l.J9yQp
ll.lSb 1&'1
ado"etttn"f't
AM
QU.7
IS. IJ I IIIi•
IS.i
CCK~fdi!Wlf.rtc
MC
;.,w 01
Given the vaciery of additions to the formula, it is clear that the saying was not fixed in Q, but could be adapted to the needs of the context with whatever conjunctio~ adverb, or prepositional phrase was most suitable. ln fo ur instance.s {those given in italics), Matthew and Luke agree in preserving Q•s exact wording. Jn six of fourtec:n cases, >.iyw UJ,J'i v introduces a statement which reverses some aspect of the previous context, mostly with some dement which could be considered surprisin.g o r marvcllou.$. Of the other cases., most contain either a marvellous clement (seven of eight), a compar· acive form or figure {four of eight), or both (rhree of eight). A similar picrure emerges from the Q mate.rial where only one evangelist bas the fo rmula; this might corroborate the assessment of the core fo urteen. Table 4.2:
~tyc.> vplv in
...
Q 10.1-f M'r.. 11.2:4
60.
11.lZ U.'t11
U.1 4 ~r),i"
Q Contexts..
....
-
- (d .Q 10.11.. 14t
c..tot..J f..niM
CIXII~
COOI'4inarlDt
MC
(QO(di na.ri~~t~ lMl
MC
In me Matthew and Luke oolwnn.s, .. dub t-)
in~tC$
that
~
of S..,U.
panlk.l verse is.
!~eking. and sttilcdbrough (c:.g., +9:-Ht indic:nes dtat parallel Q ~rial is prt:Sent but Xiyc.> \is,liv is not. Thus in the (;Olwnn 'Coo'kXtU.a1 Function', the Ierum MandL indica~ wbtthcr Xi~ U~lv h:u been ~ueued in irs MaahaWl Of l ubn coott.n. ln the colwnn 'Cooter'U$ oi
Sa }'ins', the dcsisnatio.. 11ormal thin}' and 'lto"""l shift]' indicate..,.. ol the funnW.. to marie a sb.ilt ~idw:r from ooe form of maa:dal to anocber (e.g., in Lk.. 11.9, from parabk to paraenesis), or from one mptc co another (e.g., in Q 12.8 (l.Jc.), from a discu.u ion of appropNte fear ro one of coofcssi:ng or 6t:n:ying the 5oo of man). The desig.narioo.'(reitc:nrion.J' ind.Ctc:t a \lit tO teituatt (oftt.n with exparuMxl) ~ aspoa o( tht. p~vious concen.
_
The D•11th and Amonption of].sus in Q I J.J4-JJ
.... ........ QU.A Q ll.J
QU.t Mf.IJ.l'
.,.....
U...lli~~--
~~·
lloo..O ...Iol
t.u .,.; ~
ll.JI W
1LIIi
- fd.Qn.lo,
~I!Uh.... (MI
illhenarlw
...... oJ.. ... 4U.
U..JlbW.;' i.)JJ
Q IJ.lt
""
IJ.J4
Lt . l4,lt
Lk-.1$.10 QU,17
l .l l "
-
-
s. are.,~
•.,.,
017.4
11.11eot
Q11,,
..... .....
0 17, ) 4 QlfU Wit. lf.lt
17.Jtbtii'Q•,._II
tt.u••
, • . _.......
,,.,,.,..._,
Q 11. $1b Q u.:u
_
JU.i~
,.,~,~;..,._, fLI
u.
--
,_.....
107
Pformdtnic•ll..dwrwl-lt
C:.....-'~
1,- ·-J l. .f ..iltl
......
leoo.ui *W.I
......
tnt!'Udw1UW"t (Q 7. f /101
14,1<4 ~p
cootdiaMlnl
(r.-n"l.doaJ
U . IO
coordill•ina
lklr-.•1 lbift)
.... ....
coordW.an~~t(M I
ld . Mdl, I.Milbanj
i lll:I'OitiiCIOfl' . MJ
l•lh ...
~O.•>~~t~(W !
lrt~tf'fti'-J
1 7.~
cemt~ (LI
t... c
..,.. ...... td. u. UJ4.lOI
..............
...... . ,
lreltmt;.,.j
...,,eti
........_
h is no1 swpri.sing that a far less consistent picture develops here., for whcr~ the formula is only auested by one of the cvan&cliau, its addition is quice likely." A few tentative obse:rvations may nill bt made, howe-ver, in inJtancu whcl'c there could be ground$ for supposing thar the formula
was original to Q. In Q 10.14 (Mt. 11.22), for innance, ~lyr.> vtiiv may have been original to Q.n h s use hete ro inrroduc:e a con•paradve statement is consilient with the Q U$agc demonstrated from the core fourteen uses.
Q '12.5 1 (Lk.) might havt contained an adversative u~ of the formula ('No,
[I tell you), but division'), although the formula is typically not used io Q as an interieotion, as ir it here. Similarly, Q 19.26 (Lk.} eoncluder the parable of the ralen11 with the •hocking saying, '[I tell you that) every one who has will be given more; but fro m the on.e who has not, even what he hu wiU be rakcn away', althou,gh the presence of Aiyw U~i~ in Q here it not certain. This brief examination demonstrateS a ~larively eonsisten[ use of tbe "iyw Uuiv formula where its pre:sencc in Q is certain. The formula does noc typically introduce a ch.aogc in s-peaker - wirh 1hc cxccprion. possibly. of its uw on the W'11dom saying (Q IJ.5Jb). It almost always, on the other hand., sisnalr rhac tbc following a$$C:Verative conta ins c:irher sorm rcvc:na1 of a situation in the immediately previous conrexr, or a soreme:nt of rbe
61.
So Ntitynck, 'll=nr Developmmn', p. 69.
61. Thill i11 beaU!IC Q 10. I2 also conuifts ~yo<.) Ut.~iv in QOajunaton with a paralld nructure (darlvc ol indircc:t object + iv (Tfi} ~ipq rq,[O&(o)S') • 0-\.-uTOnpov lOTat • ij + d.rivc o( compariton). Lukt: may b.:tvt: omitud W (onnula here. Mt. 10.2Jb·2.4 aoeemt to be redactioru11l, UJin\il•ring Q l0.12 to Q 10.13 ~1 4.
!08
Post-Momm Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
marvrllous or s hocking, ohe.n (though not always) with a comparative. This is of great significance for Q 13.35b, for there is now more to say about the precise nature of the formula's use than only that it introduces a conduding commem on previous mouerlai.'J AiyUl Uitu in Q 13 .35b can reasonably be expected to inuoduc.e a statement of reversal, or of something marvellous, or both. Thls does indeed seem to be the case, if it is correct tO $te in v. 35b a use of assumption language to exprtss the logic of Jesus• post-mortem vindi· cation
The Assumption of Jesus: Post-Mortem Vindication,. Exaltation, and Pa,-ousUI Steck thought a dose paraUcl to the •you will nor see me' sentence in v, JSb may be found in Sir. 15.7: 'The foo1ish will not obrain her Wisdom}, and sinnc:n; will not see her' (LXX: &v6pSS' O:~apTCAlAoi oU ~~ i&..lotv aUnl~o~}. The parallel is almost exacr .~ What is most sui king is the use of oY ~t} wich the aorist subjun~tive of Op6:w: 'youfthcy will never sec ... '. This dose verbal parallel confirmed for Steck rha1 Wisdom is the s peaker throughout the Jerusalem Lament, and that v. 3.Sb was not a Christian addition to the saying. In hjs opinion, it is a statement 'in which the judgmem announced in v. 35a is worked out in view of the <;onn«tion of the addressees to Wisdom'.". Thus the judgment announced in v. 35a - \OoU clq,inal 0 oh:os Ut.~Wv - is com1tcttd with the 'AS<:cnsus-Moment' of the: wisdom myth and expressed explicitly in v. 35b: 'the judgment lies in the fact that it is no longer possible under any condition to see Wisdom'.66 ln some ways, the view argued above that Q 13.35a refers to rhe withdrawal of Wisdom- and thus to the deutcronomistic view of tht remov;J.I of the divine protection without which Jerusalem (a1td brae I) would be opt:n to divine punishment meted out by enemies- depends upon a similar view of Q !3.35b. For if Jesus is speaking as Wisdom in Q !3.34-35, rhen his disappearance is- the di$i!ppcarance of Wi5dorn, as seen in 1 Enoch 42. However, a Jtricrly wisdom-oriented interpretation of oU ~~ lrSrJ1i IJt iws f~~u 0l'e] eimru is u1table to explain the rerurn of the speaker as {or with?) the •coming One'. Funher, it would require - as ir did (or Sreck - understanding v. 35b as a reiteration of the judgment described in v. JSa, which would create problems for interpreting the blessing in the Ps. 117.26 LXX citation. Despite rhe linguistic similarity, there is one jmporrnnt difference betwec:n Sir. 1S. 7 and Q 13.3Sb. W ithin their respective conrexts, the rwo texts refer to very different scena.rios. Sir. 15.7 stresses the inabiJiry of the foolish (v. 7a}, the •inful (7b), rhe a.rogant (Sa), and the untruthful (8h) 10 obrain wisdom.
n.e.,
63. 64. 65. 66.
X bulr.. Sp'""'/xp•~U~, pp. 348-49. Steck, lsrotl, p. 23S. Sttt;k, fSro#l, p. 23.1 (au1hor'¥ ttansflujoo). Steck. lsra~l, p. 235.
The Death and Assumption of Jesus in Q 0.34-35
109
Thus 00 J.l~ 'i&axuv aUn)v rneans simply thar the wicked cannot understand or perceive Wisdom: they cannot
st~
her now, and never will. To a cenain
extent a similar emphasis is also present in Q 13.34·35, where the-references ro rhe murdered prophets and t he repeated rcjec:tion of WISdom's (jesus') appeals stress jerusalem's impenitence. However, oU ,.ni i6rrri \J£ dM.s nor mean that 'Je.rusalem• cannot understand or perceive Je$us. but really that he will disappc_.r: that is to say, •you (the children of Jerusalem) can see me now, but at some future rime you will not see me, until you say, •siessed is the Coming One in the name of the Lord"'.
Several of the assumption narratives discussed in rhc previous chapter used 'not-seeing' language to describe rhe disappearance of the subject. The same language found in Q 13.35b (a negated fo•m of (>pow) was also p•csent in
assumption narradve.s about Elijah (2 Kgs 2.12 LXX: Kai oUK ti&v a\iTOv iT1}, ' 7 Xisouthros {8erossos: oU" iTt 04>8~vat ), Romulus {Piutarc.h~ Rom. 27.5: oVTE ~ipo; w~&l] oc.\paTO$), and Proteus (lucian, Peregr. 39: oU IJ~V it:.:~pO:TO ys)." Such language functions synonymously to O~av- disap· pearance language. Although cucain terms for assumpcion (in particular ~ETOTt&ri~t and O.prrci~w and their rel~ted fo rms} were used euphemistically for early death or for soul ascent, ~not .-seeing' and 'disappearance' were not, since disappear~.oce or ·not-seeing' language sugges's cbe physical removal of the whole person. Furthermore, Q 13.35b suggesrs a post-mortem assumption, because the rejec-tion of Jesus in Jerusalem (v. 34) culrnin:ued in his death. The preV'ious chapter also demonstrated tbat post-mortem assumption was o.o t unheard-of either in Graeco-Roman or in Jewish materials. even though assumption was typically considered an escape from deatb. Jn Greek literature, post-monem assumptions- the disappearance or removal of corpses, even fro1n tombs or funeral pyrC$ - were usuaJiy connected with the subsequent veneration of the assumed indlvidual as an immortal. In Jewish literature, as seen in Wisdom 2-5 and Testament of Job 39, assumption language could also be applied co individuals who had clearly died. Wis. 4.10· 11 uses language drawn from Gen. 5.22, 24 lXX (•uap£OTOS and ~·TaT•&!i~•), and also O.p"
67. SIX also 2 Kgs 2.10 LXX: it.~~~~· Ovo.Ao~~~n,cw. 68. See 2lso Mk 9.8 a nd Mt. 17.8 (loU.:iT1( oU6iva tT&w). which suggeu 2n aS&umpc:ion-likc removal of MOIICS and f.lijah from the: sc.me of jesus· transfiguration.
110
Post-Morum Vindi
language in Q 13.3Sb on these ground& suggests an assumption·relate.d vindication for jesus, and there appear to be three intc:ucla.red aspects tO thjs vindication: assumption as a sign of divine favour; as a means o( heavenly exaltation; and as an entry into special eschatological function.
1. Assumption and Di!An~ Favour Throughout. the Jewi$h tradition and ebewhere in ancient literature assumption is always understood as a sign of d ivine favour. As seen above, Enoch was 'pleasing' to Gcxl (Gen. 5.22, 24 LXX); Josephus alludes to the idea that Moses was taken up because of his 'surpassing virtue' {Ant. 4.326)i and the 'righteous one' was beloved by Gcxl (Wis. 4.1 1). Also, in the GuecoRoman consolation tradition and in Wis. 4.10~14, assumption language was u~d with t.he the.me of divine love tO console th<»:e mourning an untimely death. Thus Jesus' assumption, hinted at in Q 13.35b, would have been considered a sign of special divine favour or blessing, essentially reversing the shame of his death by crucifixion, implied in the immediately previous material about his rejection in Jerusalem {13.34). Ar rhis point Ztller's objection may be reconsidered~ that resurrection, nor assumption, was the more appropriate expression of God•s vindication of the crucified jesus, so that the assumption refere.nce in Q 13.35b inren· tionally omits any reference tO the death of jesus." However. an iodividual'$ death did not impede the use of assumption language to express divine intervention. But more ro Zeller's point, it appears that assumption would have been ;usr as suitable a vindication as resurrection, given the way assumption language and the theme of divine lo\'e come together in Graeco-Roman consolation materiaJs and especially in Wisdom 4-S. In fact, assumption may even have been a: more su.itable expression tha_n resurr~tion, which normally was thought of as a corporate (rather than individual) mode of vindication. Where.as resurrectlon reverses., by God's initiative, Jesus' wrongful death, the emphasis on divine favour in the assumpti.on traditions overcomes the shame (or cur"') associated with crucifixion (Deut. 21.22-23; Gal. 3. 13). Assumption language can also supply the basis for Q's belief in an exalted post·mortem Jesus and for its expectation of his return as the Son of man.
2. Assumption and Heavenly Exaltation Figure5 taken away by God frequen tly were considered in ancient literature to have an exalted posr·assumption sraros. ln Q 13.3Sb, jesus refers to hirnself as the Coming One: 'You will noc see me until (the time comes) when you say, .. Blessed is the one who comes (0 ipxbt.aei.IOS) in the name of the Lord•.' The title expreS$CS a belief in jesus' return, yet ex.ahation and 69.
Zelk-r. •£ntrikkuns'. pp. Sl9, 518.
Th• Duth and Anumprion of'""' tn Q 13.34·35
111
oschatolosical function ~ttm tO go hand in hand u resui!J of assumption in the j....;sh tndition, panirularly because thO« who hod been taken away by God and who were cxp«ted to return
miuin_g, however.. was a textual basis for cbe assumption o( jcsus.7" and clea.r
examples of the u~e of assumption as a posr··m ortem divine rescue.~'
70.
Zeller. •£nutKlq ', p. S29 (.autbor"'f tr.~mtartoa).
71.
S.. I. I o..!•n, 'n.. Apocalypcic Mydo ODd 1h< Dnth o( O•ri•f. BJltL 57 (1'7S~
n.
t-uw~.
...,. J"-a1(J7s-• n
'Eattiidtunc', p.. t09. Undara, •Apocalypt;c Mydo', p. 380. 74. Undan. 'Apocalypric Mydo-. p. 380. 7S. Undara, •Apocalypric Myth', p. 369. 7,, Und.trs, •ApocaJyptic; Mytb'. p. 318. Lindus argurd. not implawibly, that &.inte Sheol ia: not outside- C"oocf't pow«, •tbt enltit;on ro tht ~venl·y rutm don not depend on noidance of death', pa.rtiwJarly giorm t:bt- belief that 'the aouls or the- ri&heeous a~ commonly (e.g•• WiJ. 2.23-3., ; 4 MtiUdbt~s; Mk ll. J8-27; U . 16.19·3 1J rcprnenttd as Wlitins in • tc.c.c of c:ocn~rativc: blin ~mriJ dx gentnl rnunection' (J78).
7J.
112
Post-Mortem Vindication of Je.sus in rhe Sayings Gospel Q
How relevant to Q 13.35b is the assumption of Enoch and his identiJicatwn with 'that Son of man' in 1 Et~och 7G-7l? In Zeller's view, thi!i was the analogy that demonstrated his case for ass-umption in Q 13.3Sb." While numerous problems attend the issue of Enoch"s identification with the Son of man in 1 Enoch 71 - textual, compositional, and chronological uncen:aindes -clearly the identilKation was made {or at least later texts unde~tood that I Enoch 71 had made the identification: 3 F.mx:b; Tg. Ps.·J. Gen. 5.26). In any case~ ZeliC'r is correct to speak onJy in terms of an analogy. For even if 1 E.n. 71.14 is exduded on one count or anothe~. there are other texrs which confirm the consistency of the correlation between assumption and exalted heavenly srarus and furure esch.arological function. 3. Assumption and Special £schatological Functt'on The third aspect of jesus' vindication in Q 13.3Sb is refiected in the expec· tation of hls ret1.1rn. In t he Jewish tradition assumption and special eschatological function were fairly consistently linked. Here in Q 13.35b, Jesus announce-s his return as 'the Coming One• (0 ipxOIJt:VOS }. This title is used three times in Q as a dc:signa.tion of jesus, with particular emphasis on his escharologicaJ role, but also with refere nce ro his e-.archJy career as- demon.. strative- of his future- capaciry.'t Although the tide is not as common in Q as •Son of man', it is still of great significance m Q's eschatological expectation. Kloppenborg, for instance, understood the use of 0 ipx01JtV05 as occurring in a logical progression," and Allison has seen it as a s ignificam marker of a uni6ed c:omposit.ional strategy in Q. so First, ipxovovos is the one announced by john \Q 3. 16). Q 3.16·17 present$ seven! difficulties: it has a dose Markan parot11el {M k 1.7; sec otlso Jn 1.26·27, 33b and Acts 13.24·25), its original unicy in Q is the subj..:t of debate~ and Mauhew and Luke do not agree in using 0 Epx01..UHIQ5.81
o
77.
ZeJ.Iec. •EntrUckung'. p. 517.
78. On 0 ipx®G"VOS as a title in Q, see R. l.aufen. Die DoppeiUIHrli~ferungn. Jet Logienquelle uttd de$ MttrlKSevang~lWms 1.81\.B., S4; K6nignein~ Bonn: Hansuin. 1980), pp. 407-09; Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, p. 370. 79. Kk>ppcnb<>rg. Fonnat~n, p. 94: Q 3.16 and 13.3Sb betny' an ' idi-om of ap«~lyp ticism' but Q 7.19 i.s rt'lated tO 'the presence of the escbaton in jesus' (p[escnt) activity•. 80. Allison$~ four suges of •developmt:l\t' in Q wilh t t5(»Ct to JesU$ u the Coming One: '(1) John prophesies one who is to oome (3.16·17}; {2) jesus implicitly associates himJOelf with. haiab 61 (6..20*23); (3) j esus, in answer ro a question about th~ coming one, u&Ociates himxlf with Js.ai~h 61 and other teJCts (7.18..23); (.f) JesU$ <:alb himself "'tbe one who comtS" (1.3.35)' {enumeration added). Me concludes, 'Surely this christologicat sequence is due to deliberate design. aod it is nanual to assign the four tcxh to the 5amc redacrjonaJ. stage' (Allison,)eU~.s Traditio", pp. 6-7). 81. See KJoppenhors. Formati()"• pp. 106---07; H. F1edd~rmano, 'John a~n d the Co®ng One CMan 3 :11· 12// Luke 3:16· 17)', SBLSP 23 (1984), pp. 377-84 (378-79); jacobson, f:irtt Gospel~ pp. 83-85; Tuc:ken, Q and the 1/istory, pp. 116-25. Robinson et al. Criric.o/ E.dirio,., pp. 1~15, reconstructS Q 3.16b with 0 ipx~OJOS' 2!1 original to Q.
The Death and Assumpuon of Jesus in Q 13.34-35
113
Nevertheless, b
chaff (for the fire, Q 3.17). Q does not make it explicit here rhar Jesus is rhe futurt tS<;hatologi<:al figure, although - even lf Matthew's 01'1'1ow ~ov was nm original to Q 3. 16 - the elevatt'd view of ]<:$US in the remptadon (it ui.Os ,1 Too 8£oo, Q 4.3, 9b) might point in rhar direcrion. "The rwo orher uses of rhe ritle (Q 7.20; 13.3Sb) make irclear rhat Jesus is the Coming One. In Q 7.18· 19, John anempts tO verify Jesus' identiry as the Coming One: his disciples ask, aU ,1 o opxoui\IOS ii [[inp!Jov npoooo•<>l~•v; (Q 7.19)." Jesus' answer is not straightforward, but aHud" toPs. 146 and Isaiah (lsa. 26.19; 29. 18-19; 35.5-6; 42.6-7; 61.1) in a manner clo..,)y paralleled by rhe Qumran tcxr 4Q521.'-' "The reply shifts the focus from a (future) eseharological figure - since, aher all, John's question implies a comparison betWeen Jesus and the figure- he earlie.r announcC"d - tO je5us' p r<:$COt (eKhatologic.aH ministry. The following m.acarism confirms that Q ha~ jesus implying an affirmative, though reorienting, answer tO John's question: ll!o-1 ~a11!cip16) IOTov 0, !ixv ~~ 01Cav6al.oo9(i iv i~of (Q 7.23). "The tirle occurs again in Q 13.35b. Mosr scholars, as already seen, idenrify the Coming One here with the Son of man; this is justifiable, not only because
Q evidendy teJers to Jesus wich both titles, but also because the future Son of man sayings in Q look ahead ro his coming (Q 12.40; see also Mr. l 0.23) or his day or parousia (Q 17.24, 26, 30). Another tilcror behind this Linkage is probably rhe (adverbiaVperipbrastic) u"" of ipx~ovc>s with rhe ' son of man' CJCpression in Dan. 7 .13 LXX: .:ai i6oU tJtTO: TWv \lt¢1£AWv ToU oVpavoU ~~ ulO, av6poonou ipxo~••OS' ~· (cf. Mk 14.64). Bur since rhe tirleo ipxo~OVOS' is somewhar rare in Q in comparison wirh the expression 'Son of man', the question al'ises why Q should express a belief in Jesus" assumption as the means of his post-mortem exaltation tO await his fu ture C$Chatologlcal role with 0 ipx0tJtv05 instct4d of 0 viOs 1'00 (n.16pc.lrrov. Perhaps rhe redacror was consrrained by the wording of Ps. 117.26 LXX, which could have suggested itself on other grounds: the positive associations in the context of a
0 tox:upCmpOS' uou.
83. Th<: 6nite verbs in Q 3 .17 are aU future, and ~niot• fQ 3.16) was probably t l$0 in Q, deipite the M3rkan p~~Jiel {Mk 1.8); $et Rohin$0n et ~I.. C'iti~l Edition, pp. 1'1-17. 84. Roh U\1101'1 tt :al., C..riticol Edition, pp. 118-19; the q uc:;tion hu been duplicated in Lk. 7.20. 85. $«the discussion in Collins, Sc~tt-rand Sta,, pp. t 17- 22. Collins concludes, 'it is quite JKn~bk that the author oi the S..yings Source knc:w 4QS21; at the k.ast he drew on a commoo rrodirion', iince the fact that both texts mention the rca.w:rccrioo of the dead ~MOt be put down tO coinciden~e 1122). See $imil.uly KloppenbollJ. fxC41hfti1'lg Q, p. 405 0. 72.
114
Post-Mort- Vindication of je.us in the Sayings Gospel Q
bouse (compare Q 13.35a with Ps. 117.26b LXX)." Allison suggests that an eschatological interpretation of Ps. 117.26a LXX is inevitable given the view that Jerusalem and the temple are under threat of judgment: if Q 13.35a alludes toPs. 117.26b LXX and J« 12.7, a present blessing from the hou•e is impossible and thus Q 13.3Sb looks forward eschatologically." On the other band, it may also be that Q 13.35b uses assumption language togerher wirb Ps. 118.26 in order to solidify the claim thar Jesus was the 'Coming One' announced by john, if the ..fi.nt ust of the tide was traditional." Another possibility is rhat Ps. 117.26 LXX was used here because of its resonances with Hab. 2.3-4 LXX, a tc:.xt in which fpxbJJ£\10) and 0 Oh::a'OS' occur in close proximity: 10u)T, h1 Opaots t~s Kaap(w Ka't clvanA&'i tis nlpas ~eai oV,. tis K£v0v· iO:v ,Jo-npt\an unopt~vov aurov '"' ipxoprvos •al o& PI\ xpovlan. " iO:v inrooniArrrat, cin' eUOOKel ~ 4'VX'i pou tv aUT4>' 0 ~ OIKatos EK 1fl01'SW5 pOU ~tl0£T<Xt.
ijs"
l Bccause there: is yet a vision for the appointed tim~ and it will arise at the end and it will not be in vain; if it should fail~ wait for it, be~ use when it comes it will come and it will not delay. • If it should withdraw, my soul would not be pleased with it; bur the righteous one will live by my faithfulness. Hab. 2.3 LXX commends i,..lf as a parallel to Q 13.35b on several counts: the reference to a timely vision (ht Opaa1s ais ka1pOv, rever$ed in Q 13.35b'l negative use of Opaw for the disappearance of Jesus}, the use of ipx®tvos, and the use of ~il in close proximity to oV J.lli with the aoritt subjunctive for an emphatic negative future (00 IJiJ XPOVfOT}). i TTIO'UvQy(.ol ()(:curs both in Q 13.34 (rwice) and in Hab. 2.5 LXX. While the referent of ipxopEV05 in Hab. 2.3 LXX is a con>ing vision {rather than a coming figure), lattr uses of the te.xt take it to refer to the ' Coming One' (Heb. 10.37-38; Acrs 7.52). Richard Hays suggests that 'Srephen•s reference to the eleusis of the Righreous One [in Acts 7.52] may ecbo a well~esrablished tradition of reading Hab. 2.3-4 as a messianic prophecy.'" Both August Strobel and Hays supposed that Hab. 2.3 is the
86. 87. 88.
See A11i&On.]UM.J Tradition, p. 194. Allison, J,umxtwl)etMs, pp. J6~. See. Kloppeob<>rg, Formalion, pp. 1()4..0.5. 116.
89. R.A. Hays, ""The Righceous One"' u Esc:huo\ogical Dtlivertf': A Case Srudy in huJ's Apocalyptitc HC".nncmeuOO', in J. MaKus and M.L. Soards (eds.). Apoc4/yptic "ttd th• Nft41 T~st#mtm (mtsduift j.L. Manyn; JSNTSup, 24; SMffietd: JSOT Pr~ s., 1989). pp. 191- 215 (195). Set also A. Suobe~ Untn$Uehlnfgm tum ~$ChQto/ogi$eh¥n V~ngflr'Qbli!m: ON( G,_M Mr $~tjNJI.sch-ttt(hri$dkhnt Gcuhidrt4 IIQn HllboUt.Nk
2.2ff (NuvTSup, 2; U:itkn: lkill, 19611, pp. 47-56; D.·A. Koch, 'Der Text von Hab 2.4b in der Sep..,.ginu und im Neuen Teoumer11', ZNW 76 (1985), pp. 68-85 (7J n. 25).
The Death and A•$UmfJiion o f jesus;,, Q 13.34·35
115
source of the US< of ipxo~•""> in Q 7.19, though neither bad much to say about its usc in the context of Q 13.35b." Howeve~ Hays thought that 'once ho n-chomenos came to be understood as a messianic: ticlt, a midnishic link berween the Psalm text and Hab. 2.3 would have been in any case vinually inevitable'.' 1 More recencly_, Allison has suggested Hab. 2.3 as a possible background to Q 12.42-46, which, as will be argued below, has impOrtant affinities with Q 13.34-35.» Hab. 2.3~4 was an imp:>rtant text in early Christiin literature., especially for Paul, but other sources use similar language <0 that of Hab. 2.3-4 in their descriptions of exalted figures." Moststriking are Wisdom 2- 5, where the 4 righreous one• experiences posr-monem exalta.tio~ and the SimilituJu of EnO
90. Suobcl, V.,.;;gemngsprobkm, pp. 265-n: H.ys, ·R;ghteous One', p. 196. 91. Hay., 'R;ghteOU> One', p. 213 n. 15. 92. Allison, lntt'f'tarual J~s.u. pp. 13 1-32. Allison notes thu Q 12.42-46 snd H,b. 2.3 both (1) u k $imilat language to talk about dda y, f2) oonuau the faithful with tbcunf:tirhful, :tad (3. tmphuite -tXce5$iYt drink :tS 2 pidalf. 93. Hays.. 'Ri&htcous One". p-p. 193-206 (nc>n·Pauli.ne texts); 206- lllPauJ). 94. l'becon.oc«ion wilh Hab. l .J-4 isdt:uesr in 1 b. J 9.6, whtte rbe 6gure tscaJicd 'the C~n Ooe of righle01J$(1(S$ and £:tirb•. 95. ln 'ddirion, Sf!'t': I En. 46.3 anch:sp«talty 7 1.16-17, where iris .nr~d th:tr those who follow the path of the Son of man (now Et~«h ) are •the rightcot.ts', 96. W'ilh the exception of i~h ~:cuW&n (Q 7.35). Manh.tw li.S(!t 6i.:o:•os- in rbe.oonrcxr of the Woes (Q 11.+4, 47, SO, 51 1aod other Q material (Mt. 5.45, cf. Q 6.35; Q 10.24}; Luke uses the- adjective rwice in Qconrcxu (lk.. 12.S7; 15.7). Tht mon significant USotS are in the Wi5'J()O) sayina, where Mauhew•$ Vtt$iOO emph2si't.n the innot;enOe of tbe murdertd righuou.~ t.Q lt ..S0-51)- bur luke docs nor, which sugg~a rh.ar ~laca1os was not presenr in Q. t3peci.alty sinoe Luke has no ~version tO the U$! of the adiecti"e in S\ICh conteXt$ (tee Lk. 23.<7: Am 3.1<-IS; 1.S2).
116
Post·Mortem Vindication of )ems in the Sayings Gospel Q
salvation of j erusalem." Sometimes refer~nce is made to 1 Enoch 62: in the judgment, the wicked recognize the Chosen One (vv. 3·SI and then bless and worship 'that Son of man', begging for mercy (vv. 6, 9}, bur are punished by angels, becoming 'a s pccta.de for the righteous and for his chosen ones' (V'. 12)." However, the acc lamation's positive tone suggests Q 13.3Sb does not refer to Jerusale-m's inevitable oondemnacion at the judgment of the Coming One, but is designed to elicit repentance, possibly along the lines of the 'conditional prophecy' reAding proposed by van der Kwaak and Allison. As in other deutcronomistK: materials, the themes of rejettcd prophetic appcotls and threatened judgment in Q 13.34-35 could invite a positive response of repentance - a lthough it is also pOS$ible t hat the soying's primary use in Q was to conso-le the community with the hope chat chose who rejected their appeals would be dt.alt with severely at the judgment. Ar. this poin~ some important similarities berween the approach taken in Q 13.34· 35 and in Luke·ACts are worth noting. Luke multiplies the verbal parallels bttween the .s tories o £ Elijah's assumption and Jesus' ascension: £or inseaoce, the use of OIICI~cr~flaYw and •is TOYe>Upavov (2 Kgs 2.1, 9·11; Lk. 24.51; ACt$ 1.2, 11); the emphasis on seeing (2 Kgs 2.10, 12; Acts 1.9·111; the c.ommand to s it (2 Kgs 2.2.. 4, 6; Lk. 24.49); the subseq uent reception of Spirit (2 Kgs 2.9, 15; Lk. 24.49; Acts 1.8; 2 .1·4)." Luke's interest, as suggested in the previous chapter, is in explaining j esus• fu ture role using the standard association of assumpcion with special eschar-ological function. The focus is on jesus being taken up as Elijah but the cod result is jesus as the coming Son of man (Acts 1.11; l.k. 21.271. As noted above, Q 13.35b uses 'not seeing• language similar to that of r.he Elijah assumption story {2 Kgs 2.31), and elsewhere in Q allusions are made to the Elijah cycle: fo r inseance, Q 9.59· 60 (a nd possibly [Q 9.61·62)) a lludes to 1 Kgs 19.19·21, as AHison has observed.100 This nor o nly supportS the present thesis that Q connected assumption with eschatological function in the case: of jesus (as did the Elijah tradition with Eli.jah). It also suggests tha[ Luke's asct>nsion $tOry represents a more developed fo rm of the idea already present in l uke's source material, but with essentially the same christological p urpose: the explanation of jesus' future role as the coming Son of man, and possibly of his exaltation in the meantime.
9?, So Manson. &Jyings, p.l28; Stec.k, lsr~H!I, p. 237~ Hoffmann. Studkn, p. 1? 8; Scbulz, SpruchqN4lle, pp. 3S8-59 ($ucnuously); Po1:ag, ClrtisUJlogie, p. 94; C arland, Lnunti<J,., p. 201 (in Matthew, at lc:ut}; Zeller, '&trUckung". p • .S17. 98. ~e. for instance, Moffinann. Studim, pp. 177- 78; ZdJer ~feu to r En. 48.5, where however it is thr Lord of the Spirits (and ooc the Elm One/Soo of man) who is blessed and pr:ai!IC!d by all human beings ('EnuUckung', p. 517). 99. Zwicp, Asunsio.n, pp. 80-83, 116, ~nd 'Auurnptui t$1', pp. 344, 348; 5« ~bo j.S. Croatto, 'J e.~ Prophet ljke Ellj.:.h, ~.1'1d Prophet· Teacher like Mosa in Lukc·Acu',}Bt 124 (2005), pp. 451..;;5 (456-58).
100. Alliwo, l"l¢b
twJI
Jt:SU$, pp. 142-45.
The Death and Assumption of Jesus in Q 13.34-JS
I 17
4. implications
At this point $O!lle lmplic;ations of seeing assumption language and associ.ate.d ideas in Q 13.35b can be given. First, conc~rning the mucture of Q 13.34.35 as a whole: v. 34 cefcn obliquely co the rejection of jesus in Jerus.alem, and v. 3Sa refers to the consequent abandonment of the 'house, signifying the withdrawal of Wisdom and of divine protection; but v. 3Sb refers to the assumption of jesus as che means of his vindicarion and installation to his t:schatologieal role as the Coming One, hinting a t the pos-sible restoration of Jerusalem (Israel). If the acclamation of blessing is correctly read along
these lines, the overall deuteronom.isric framework or the saying is clarified.
Now, in Zeller's view the anumprion o f jesus, as an escape from death and preservation from harm, counterbalances tbe deutcronomistic ideas of prophecic murder and the final destruction of Jerusalem present in Q 13.34~ 35::~.. 10' Howe..·er, if the reference to rhe Coming One is not understood as a prediction of U11qualified condemnation for Jerusalem, the saying also fits very well within Stock's seven-part struc:ture for the deuteronomistic 'Pro phetcnauss.age': A.
The whole history of Israel is dcpieud as one of persistent disobedience. B. Therd o re, God makes repeated appeals to Isra el, through the prophets, in order ro bring them to repentance. C. These appeals: are mer with persistent rejection, usl.latly meaning the persecution or death of the prophets. D. Ther
ln Steck's view, elements A, B, and C come together in 13.34, the imprecation.10l The speaker's desire to gacher Jerusalem~ children means there was once a c"ll for repen r~nce and restoration (Fl). ' 04 ln the prophetic threat (v. 35a), the speaker predicrs t he abaodonmem of jerusalem and the imminent destruction of the ciry. But Steck thought neither element D nor E appear here: there is no reco11ecrion of God's past efforts ro correct his peop1e, nor any present call for repentance:. l_nstead.. vcr$C: 35 :tS a whole expresses element F2, the definitive and final judgment of Israel. 10'
l01. ZeiJer. 'EotrU<:kung'. p. 518. 102. In Stoc-k's vitw, it~ms A ro D are the basic d ements i.n rhe deuteronomistK
taditjon. and this. rcprc:sents a IO'ter txpan
118
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
However, on the reading o( Q 13.34·35 argued herein. there is a greater conformity to the dc:uteronomjsrjc framework, as Table 4.3 shows. Table 4.3; The Deuteronomistic Structure of Q 13.34-JS - ldll:ifti proph.m atad «Ofli"S tm.iswriu
A: dlso'bcdiltf>Or
- •lM)., ofl~ll I w!Ahcd , •• aad y
-
~n• pcf ~~~~N-..rl'*
8.: propbcrlo: ~*·'•
.. 'MI.,. nh"1l wahr.d'
Cr tri«cnl appuh
.,lciJ[i"i ud S!OIIi llg - 'fOol dW ilOC wW.' - •&hold. JMr ho;,tc it klnakcn'
Dt pu»idunmt
E: call
- 'Vou w\.ll ne.t We .W•ntll .,,'
-l 1r1~ l• rltcc "'''~ clrbeu'flnl hl the Q $it: m 1~..
fi)J r(l'Cota,....c
~. tetlll'n..• •·'")
- i.111:plicil in the at'dun•riotr. Wr bck tht:rtofltl rlK:
Pl.: &~l iuJII."'"'*'"
uwr11 of1k Coming 011e
Up to E!emenc D~ dlis agrees with Steck~s appraisaL The punishmenc for Jerusalem's persistent rejection of the appeals of God, both through history ~nd in JC$us, is the abandonment ol the city to destruaion and the diu~ pearance of Jesus from their midst. Yet because verse 3Sb represents a wholescale reversal of the situation in verses 34 and 35a, as a.rgued above, the appearance of the Coming One- and the acclamation of blessing - means both Elements F1 and F2 (restoration and judgment) are implied in the
temporaVc:onditional clause. Ele.ment £, the present call for repentanc~ is implicit in the fact that the saying is being used in Q (or in the Q preaching), presumably in order to pro"oke repentance wbile there is sriU time. lOt> Another implication relates to the chriscology of Q. It was argued above that Q 13.34~35, with Jesu.s as irs speaker in Q, presents an advanced Wisdom christology alo ng the same lines as Q 10.21 ·22. The Jerusalem Lament is also the high point of Q 's deuteronomisric rheology, si.nce it sees jeruS3Iem~s rejection of jesus as the culminating instance of impenitence, which results in the abandonment of Jerusalem [ 0 destruction. However., Q 13.35b also uses assumption language and exploits the typical association between assumption and eschatological function in order to assimilate the Wisdom chrisrology prominenr in [he Lamenr {and elsewhere in Q) to the Son of man c:hristology also prominent in Q . .But does this use of assumption language tell us anything about the origin of Q's Son of man christology? The 'origin' of Q'.s chrisrology is difficult to determine especially given the problems that the document's redactionaV
106. Allison also
SCC$
aU ~rn:-n of Strc.k's deuteronomistk dements in Q Uesus
'Trdditiott. p. 203 n. 53), and thinks Q coot:tins th~ one d~ute:ronominic ~~~ thai jacobson !Fim Gos~J, p. 73) thought was lackingt •If Isn.eJ repeo.u, Yllhweh wit! ~tore ~ gatbuing chose teattered among: the nariorlS' (J'RU Tr4dition, p. 203, rtferting tO Q 13.29, 28 and l3.3Sbl.
The Death and Assumption oflosus in Q IJ.J..JS
119
compositional hinory posco. At the least, lh< way that assumption language appears to function in r
resutucrion rheology) c;a.noor be rcprdtd as rhc formative duistological moment for Q.'M'Assumption' seems to be a more appropriate tbtoJogical category from which ro con.sider the development of Q's Son of man christoiOSY than rc>urr«:tion (tholl8h the signi6cance of that insight must still be exploted). The next chapter will show
rhar other Q sayings and compositional srrattgies can be explaintd in light
of the 'assumprion theology' of Q 13.34-35, strengthening this possibiUry. Yer certainty is ultimately impossible, for it was seen in the previou1 chapter
how some sources apparently could speak secondarily about the assumption of figurts who on other grounds were beJieved ro have a special heavenly or t'KharologicaJstatus.; the same kind of deveJopment cannot be ruled out for Q. In other words, assumption languagt in Q 13.3Sb could be lor Q only a way of accounting for a prior belief in jesus as the comins Son of man. The ~adiog of Q 13.34-35 ptopostd hen! indl
Working in anorhcr direction, Q also elevated jesus· Jttrus &om th-ar of Wisdom's emissary to tht point whe"' ht speaks, as(or on behalf of) Sophia, as the med13ror of revelation {Q 10.21-22) and as rht origin of prophetic •ppeals (13.34-35). Finally, Q forged a correlation between th
Wisdom•a de:p:anure is reconfigured as the removal, and pre:serva.rion for a future rolt, of jesus the Coming One.
On th• Origin and D.udt>p,..,.t of Q I 3.34-JS Scholan such as 8ult:mann (relying on his pt
rhe foregoing lnterprer:ation of Q 13.34 35 in vires che conclusion thar it is a Q <:om position. ~to scnin& the uttt:ranct about jerusalem•• forsaken house 4
(v. 3Sa) probably re6ecrs a setting when the removal o( divine protection
120
l'ost-MOTI<m VindiCtJtion of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
seemed likel)'. rather chan one after the Temple's destruction in 70 CE. As Kloppenborg points our, this condusion could have bc:cn drawn i.n peacetime gi·ven knowledge of the practice of evocatio deorum. 108 On the other hand, v. 35b c:ould reflect a setting in which it s till seemed that the dest.rucrion of j erusalem couJd be otvoidcd, i( resx:ntancc prec«ied the Coming One. This is because. the Psalm 118 citation at least holds ouc the possibility of a positive outcome fo r jerusalem ('until you say ... •). 1fW Thus it seems unlikely
th<Jt hostilities had progressed t () the point where the salvation of Jerusalem would seem impossible. If v. 35b is a redactional addition to the saying, its perspective does nor seem to require a s ubstantially different Setting than v, JSa. On the other hand, Q 13.34-3Sa as a deuteronomistic unerance of judgment make!O sense as a unit o n its own. Thu~ lt &eems best to conclude that v. 3Sb was added redacrionally to that complex, reversing the situation in vv. 34-3 5a on two counts Uesus rejected and vindicattdt jerusa lem
abandoned and invited to escape judgment), and 6Jiing out more completely the franltwork of the deureronomistic statements about the prophetS. Yet the apostrophe to jerusalem reflects a compositional interest in the S"ptei6c (:asto of jesus, and a focus on themes and allusions drawn froro the one text where Jerusalem is singled out - 2 Chron. 24.l7·24. 110 This text has, as Robinson noted? numerous other points of cont;Jct with Q 13.34-35. But as not.cd above, a deuteronomistic interpretation of hjsrory is not the only possible grounds for concluding that the temple was abandoned, so it cannot be ruled out that v. 3Sa circulated separately from v. 34, which then could be viewed as a secondary deureronomistic rationa lization. Regardless, a Q composition for the saying is likely, with its completed form {1) expressing a belief in jesus? post-mortem vindic:atioo a.s the reversal o( his cejection by jerusalem, but also (2) announcing judgment at his return as Coming One on those who reje.cre-d him, and {3) inviting a respOnse of repentance in view of the hastening end. 111 108. Kloppe11borg. 'Dare of Mark', p. 442. Ttferrlng to Q J3.3Sa :tnd ]es,w ben l'lananiah Uoscphus, Wor 6.300..09t. 109. Q J3.34 3S is a decisive text IOf the:". dating o-f Q, but the: conditions that fbi:_ Jenu:akm Ummt s:u.ggescs are not :ag:retd upon. See Fl.edderm2nn, Ruonstnution and Comm4tntary, pp. 1$7-59, 70$-Q7 (dating Q tO 'around 1S a', and tak(og: Q 13 ..34~35 as a r«
1"he Duth and Assumption o{Jesus in Q 13.34-35
121
E.x
Q 12.4-S assumes a typicilly Helknimc body.soulonthtopology, advocating the feat not of those: who ue able only to kill the body alone, but of God who is able to d<1troy both soul and body in C. henna."' Hete death is understood as a sepantion of body and soul~ since an ongoing life: for the soul after rht death of the body ls presumed. In some of the •ourccs investi· gated above, problem$ aTQSc wben death. viewed in rhis way, was followed (or accompanied) by the disappearance of the corpse. As ucn in the previous chaplet, Antoninus Liberalis uotmally described the body of the memmor·
phosed person as experiencing a transformation, even after death, while the soul would s urvive to a diffecent fate. Both Philo and Ovid could talk of the dissolution o( the physical body, thus rct<1ining tht' disappearance aspect of assumption longuage while avoiding saying that tht body it immortalized . Similatly, bmh the aseenr of MS
r•••
o
•disappenrancc' language, early death here is equared wirh rhc divine bless-ing of assumption, taken 'euphemistically'. So, what undct1tanding o( jesus• assumption lies beneath the language of Q 13.3Sb? Q does not narrativiz.e
J 11. FOC" rcCONtn.le'hon. see Robi~ et at... Critiul Edilioft, pp. 29-6-99. Matthew's wordina. which t looe retain$ rh.e ~fer~ roW soul (Mt.. IO.l.S), is &trwralty acnpttd pp. sz-sJ and 221 IL u ...lli..l •o Q: Schuh., SprK
ww-.
122
Post-Mortem Vindication ofJesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
language, which suggests more than a euphemistic meaning. lf Q's understanding of the assumption of Jesus was nor euphemistic, there is no reason to think that it would have sought to account for rhe fate of Jesus' soul at the point of death. Other writings examined in the previous chapter St"emed able to aiJow death and assumption to coexist without questioning the anchropoJogical details (for instance, Chariton, Chaer. 3.3; Plurarc,h, Rom. 28.6 and Ant. Lib., Metam. 33.3-4; T. Job 39.8-40.3; Prot. }as. 24.9). lt seems best to conjecture that Q would have thought of jesu-s ' post-mortem assumption in a similar way, thinking re.alisrically of a millennium-old religious motif without letting current anthropology get in the way.
Chapter 5 THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ASSUMYTION IN Q 13.34-35 FOR OTHER Q MATERIAI..S
The-contenlion that Q 13.35 alludes tO the a.s sumption of jesus has broader implicarioos- for the study of Q, which this chapter will examine: first, Q materials describing an absent and rerurning master, or an invisible and s uddenly appearing Son of man, can be understood in relation to Q 13.3435; second, the expe-ctation of corporate vindication in Q can be relate~ albeit tangentially, to its- 'assumption' christology; third, the ~sign of Jonah' saying (Q 11.29-30) could, according ro Zeller, be clari6ed with reference t<> the connection berween jesus' disappearance and his eschatologicaJ role-. 1
Absence, Invisibility, and Return in Q
Jn John Dominic Crossan•s opinion, Mark created the Empty Tomb $tory (Mk 16.1-8) as an 'an6-tradition' in opposition to the 'Apparicion ttadition' (deployed as a cred:al state.ment in 1 Cor. 15.3·7, and in nanativc for m elsewhere). For Mk 16.1·8, the emphasis is on the 'absent Lord': 4 0R earth therto are no apparitions but only the harsh negative of the Lempty tombj and the Lord wbo "is nor her."'.' Regarding Q 13.35, Uro has argued that •jesus' withdrawal may represt:nt a s imilar "absent Jes:us• theology as that found in che Empty Tomb story known w Mark. ' 3 This raises the possibility of a comparison between Q and Mark 16.1 ·8, which is undertaken in the following chapter. But there are sayings in Q whkh s-uggest an absent roaste~ or an unseen or absent Son of man, and these may be interpreted in light of the disappearance language in Q 13.35b. In Q, J esus' assumption-related absence is less the •harsh negative' that Crossan saw in Ma rk, a nd more a
Z
I.
Z.
(1,12).
3.
Uro, 'Jtesu,s.oliikc ja yJOmousemw', p. t t l. In this essay, Uro suggests Q 13.3.Sb
cxprmtt tomethitlg IJke the withdrawal o£ Wi~otn, bU1 in a l•ttr etAr be aUow$ that it expresses asnunptioo as 'enJtarion' ('Apocalyptic Symbolism', p. Ill n. t27t.
124
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in lh• Sayings G"'pel Q
necessary implication of j esus' post-mortem presence elsewhere until his ..chatOiogical role. The Q materials that display themes like ab.en<e or in vis· ibiliry have to do with t he time before the Son of maa•s coming. Q 13.35b, a$ an assumpcion pred icdon, s uggests a scenario of disap-pearance-abscnce-recurn: •t cell you, you will not see me until (the time] comes when you say, "'Blessed is the Coming One in the name o( tbc Lord!"'' Two sets of sayings in Qdescribe rhe return of an absent master (Q 12.4 2-46 and Q 19 . ll-13, 15·24, 26) or the invisibility and sudden appearance of the S<Jn of mon (Q 12.39-40, (Q 17.22), and Q 17.23-24); these can be read in light of the assumprion-o.bsence-parousia schema suggested by Q 13.35b. If such a reading sec:ms warranted, these texts may be considered circumstantial evidence for the imponance of ~assumption' in Q.
1. The Absent and R~t.urning Master
Two Q parables use the imagery of an absc:nt and returning master: ' f"a.ithful and Unfaithful Slaves' (Q 12.42·46), and 'The Entrusted Money' (Q 19.12· 13, 15·24, 26). Aside from differences between Lk. 12.42 and Mt. 24.45,' the fo rmer pa rab(e•s reconstruction is not problem~6c. On the other hand, 'the substantial disagreements between Matthew and Luke {in Q 19!, as wtll as- tht somewhat differ~ut narrative line.s, account for s erious source: critical disputes'.' Because of these difficulties, Q 12.42-46 will be t he mote important text to be examined here. That said, Matthew and Luke do nor disagree substantiaUy about the master's deparcure and return in Q 19, despite the different vocabulary used, so that it c;ao be s.afcly concluded that Q contained a parable about an absent and returning master betwetn Q 17.34·35 a nd Q22.28, 30; hut the examination of this parable will b< limited herein to more general observations and to comcxtual considerations. In Q 12.42-·46~ there is no direct reftrtnce t<) the departure of the master {0 r:Up105),' but his absence is clear, for be appoints beforehand one of his slaves co feed the household in a timely fashion {12.42); besides, the master's coming (12.43, .(5, 46) must mc:an he has been away. During this a~encc, the appointed slave•s behaviour is the focus: either it will establish h im as blessed (~aKapu>s-, v. 43) and deserving greater respOnsibility (v. 44), or it wiU prove him faithless {TO uEpos oUT
See Robinson d ~l. Cri#a~/ E.dili<m, pp. 366-67. KJoppenborg, Q P"ndlel$. p. 200. Some have doubted its presence: in Q, including tunuclt, Sdyinxs ofl~us, pp. 122- U ; M2fl1,0Jl, Sayings. p. 24$; P. Vw.ili2dis:, ''The Nawre and Ex
.S.
p.2#.
6.
k\ip•os OCI.'Un fol.lt ti.mt$ in th.is pacable.
Sign~na of Assumption in
Q IJ.J4.JS
L2S
The coming of the master is described in rcrms simil.lr ro thOS< US (~II aip1~ loU ao.iAov iuivou, v. 46). An obvious choice foe the maS<er's return would be iPXO\JGI; however, Q lJ.JSb uses ipx(>IJl~ for Jesus who returns after an absence that begins with assumption, and in the prectding pericope (Q 12.39 -~01, the coming of the Son of man is compared to the c·oming of a rbic£ (0 KAirr1ll5lpxncll, v, 39; 0 uiOs ToU 0\IGpWnou ip,XtTOI, v. 40). If Q 12.42-'16 functions as an inl<rpretotive addition to 12.39-~0, the master in rhe parable should be identified with the Son of man of v. 40.1 If this is correct, h may be pointed our rhat, on Kloppenburg's con.u rual of the composition of Q at least, this parable abour Rn absent master was composed as part of the same redactional stratum as Q 13.34·35.' The verb ii also appears hot< IQ 12.461. It is nor used frequently in Q, bu1 it refrrs to the eschatological future equ•lly in Q 12.46 as in irs other two uses in Q (Q 13.29; 13.JSb). 1° For the preceding context IQ 12.39-40) refers ro the unexpected ooming of the Son of mao. 11 Funbermore, within cbe oonlines of tM parable it>
o
o
o
19.16, 18, 20; also v, 15), goes away on a journey," and calling his slaves enttusu money 10 them (19.12·131. After a prolonged absence- which is nor as decisive an issue as in Q 12.42·46 - he: rerurns and sttdes accounts
U.. 12.4.5 addt tht c:ocnp~ry i:olin.itive tO clarify that ic iJ lhe maatr"s com.inQ 7. which it dtiayl Q 12,42-46 dtpeods upon do< uo
126
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in tht Sayings Gospel Q
with the:m (19.1S).u As the accounts are serded, the s laves are either rewarde
2. The Suddenly Appearing Son of Man
Q 12.39-40 likens the coming of the Son of mon to the arrival of a thief to break into a house. As Heinz Sc:hi.irmann noted, 'the discrepancy between the metaphor, whic.h portrays a calamitous event, and its application to the coming Son of man probably pOints tO a .sec:ondary expansion'." It is also likely, as Schiirmann suggested, that 'the composirion in Q 12.35-40 continued to grow secondarily' through the addition of 12.42-46. " As argued above, this puts 12.42.. 46 in the same compositional stratum as Q 13.34-35, which predi<.~s the absence and return of j esus. The r
Set Robinson
tt
:al., Critical &iition, p. .5.32, opting for
th~
wording of Mt.
2.1.19. Kloppcnborg, Fot"11f41K.m_, p. 163 (with literature, n. 2?4). Stt Kir~ Composilicm, pp. 297- 98. 18. SchUrmann. •Son of Mao Tide', pp. 87-88. KJoppenborg, ~ion. p. 149, thinks the two patt:S of dtis saying compkx are inc{)ruistent in logic: the parabt~ advoc:aoes watcMUloCS$ to pcevt:nt a theft, while: 1be interpretation suggest$ that the comi~ of the Soc o-f man can be ndtbtr fores«n nor prevmtt'd. Cf. Schulz. Sprt~dtquelk, p. 268; liib.tmann, R
Signi(iC<Jnu of Assumption in Q 13.34-3.5
127
-that is, to stay at home and stay watchful at aU times. Knowing the time of when a thief will c:ome is impossible. The interpretation of the parable (12.40) seizes upon this, a nd warns the~t because the time of the Son of ma.n's coming is unknowable, those expecting his coming ,hould be ready (i"To•uo•) always. This also has impli""tions for the following parable (12.42-46): the choice is between being faithful a lways (that is, ready to be (found so doing'), or being unfaithlul (and caught unawares}. The wicked s la"c's undoi_ n g was
his presumption about t he riming of the master's return. Had h.c known when the master would return, he would not have begun his misbehaviour (12.45), or would have rjmcd it more appropriately. The admonitory point of boc:h 12.39-40 and 12.42-46 is, 'Be: ready always for the unknowable
w•
20. Allison,)UNt Trt~diricm, p. 203. 21. KJoppmborg arguc9 dlat 'lingui.stic: fearurts., as ~II as the prnence o f the Lucm agenda of explaining r~r the contemporaries of]e$US will not witnm tht P;uousia., identify l.u.ke 17:22 as~ Lucan *ddition• (Formation, p. ISS I. Stt also SchuJz., Spruchqfl4llk, p. 278 n. 90; Robitl$01'1 et al., Criric.tJI f.dlr ~. pp. 5()()-01. AJiisC)Il ~ves no e-,rplan.:.tion for h.is induston of Lie. 1?.12 in Q C}esfl.S T"uUr.io'fl, p-. 203); ~ od Uro think.$ Lk. 1?.22 'f.:()u)d be .a rcminiKencc o( Q tJ.l$' (•Apoc2lypt;c- Symbolism•. p. 97 n. 33). 22. Kloppenbo
128
Post-Mort= Vindicalion of jesus in the Sayings Gosptl Q
mistaken, fo r t he Son of man's coming wilt not take place imperceptibly: it will happen 'as the lighming stteaks from the east and fbshes as far as the west' (17.24)." And following after such pronouncements will be fruitless: the Son of man will nor be there; he will still be absent. Those who know how t he Son o f man will appear will not be misled. Uro is corn:ct that 'Q 17.23 reflects the idea of the absence of jesus', rather than the idea of false prophets." 'Spatial rather than temporal language~ dominates the desc:r1prjon of the coming of the Son of man in Q 17.23-24. 21 Q 17.37 ('Wherever the corpse is, there the vultures will gather'), which probably originally followed 17.23-
24, also describes a visible.sjgn of the Son of man's coming.z. A shih in focus occurs at this point in Q 17, 'from geographical to temporal concerns•.J:i Thus the Noah saying (17.26-27) and the Lot saying (vv. 28-29)30 emphasize the sudden imrusion of the Son of mao•s coming imo everyday life. But the spatia' aspecu of these depictions of the coming of the Son of man are important here, because they require that onetime absence becomes presence, unexpectedly and undeniably. In Uro's words, 'It is obvious that both 13.35b and 17.23ff express the same conviction of the author. jesus remains unseen until the day of his publk manifestation. ' 3 1 This theme is also present in Q 12.2-3, which looks ahead to a future time of revelation and knowledge of hidden rhings (arroKa>.vct9JiOtTal, yvc.>o&!iotTal), though the focus there is more on the coming judgment than the coming of the Son of man.12 ln Q 17.23·24, the juxtaposition of the warnings against foUowing tbose who i2)' 'Behold!' (v. 23) with the imagery of lightning (v. 24) emphasizes the public manifestation of the Son of man. This is how the end of Jesus' a bsenc-e was imagined, as the acclamation of the Coming One in t3.35b suggests. Uro
"25. 26. 17.
Sdtui1.. Spruehq•4tll4, p. 28Jo Pipet. WisdOm, p. 141.
Uro, •ApocalyptlC Symboli..w:n•, p. 114 n. 13<1. Uro, • Ap<.~C~lyptic Symbolism'. p. 114. 28. So Robinson t"t at. Critical Edition, pp. 508-13; forliterarure, see l(loppenborg, Q Pa
Significance of Asswnption in Q 13.34-35
129
conjectures (hesitantly) on the grounds of these thematic similarities rhat
Q 13.34·35 may have originaUy served as the introduction to the Q 17 material. JJ David Catchpole reconstructs the order of Q along similar l.ines.J4 Thematic proximjty need not require contextual proxitniry, however.
J. Implications To sum up: there are similarities of language (ipxo~ot , t)Kc.>} and motif (disappearance/deparrure - invisibility/absence - appearance/presence) between Q 13.35b and other Q material concerning an absent then suddenly returning master or Son of man. In orher early Cbri$tian texts, the idea of the absence then •udden appearance or return of jesu• may be found. For instance, 1 The.•. 1.10 speaks of waiting for the L<>rd Jesus (to appear) from heaven, presuming a scenario of resurrec:rion (0v ~yttp~v iK [rWv] vtkpWv} followed by heavenly enthronement or exaltation (EKTi:Jv oUpaw:lv) before his return. As seen above, something similar is going on in Luke-Acts, which also includes the additional step of ;15eension (assumption), if not to account for the exaltation of the risen jesus, at least to express in 'tradidonal' terms how he was going tO return {Act$1.11}. Howe ..·er, as shown above-, a scenario of resurrection~xaltarion""1>3rousia is not found in Q. The expression "Son of rnan' in Q is consiste-ntly a wa.y of referring to jesus, so that even those mate-rials which refer to a coming Son of ma.o have jesus in view, though apan from his eanh1y career. The Q materials juS[ examined relate the coming of the Son of man after a time of absence to pacabolic materials about an absent master who returns tO judge rhe conduct of his slaves. These materials focus on absence and re-turn, owing to parabolic constraints and paraenc:tic concerns, so that the way the mas-ter becomes absent is nor of direct concern: he simply is not there (Q 12.42), with a slave appointed in his absence, or is away on a trip (Q 19.12). Similarly, the Son of man is ab>ent befo,. his 'day' (Q 17.23·24, 26, 30; d. 12.46), and the weight is on the spatial and temporal aspects of his return (Q 12.40; 17.23· 24, 37, 26·27, 30, 34-35). The>< particular textS do not explain how Jesus the Son of man berom& absent; they begin from the supposition that he is alnc-nt. Formally? the eschatological sayings provide room fo( expressing how he becomes absent, although language of •disappearance' or 'invisibility, is lacking (except for Lk. 17 .22, which probably was nor in Q). Either way a period of the phy•ical absence of Jesus the Son of man is highlighted. All this is consistent with the scenario that Q 13.35 depicts, on rhe reading argued above: jesus will no more be seen until he returns to the acclamation of 'jcru•alem' in the words of Ps. 118.26. In Q 13.35 the frx:us is on the 33. Uro, 'Apocalyptic Symbolism'. pp. 9·1, 114. 34. C"chpole, Q-«t, p. 2S9, followiog MonN>w'o order' 'Q 11.3?· 52; 13.34·35; 17.22-37; 12.39-,.6•. Similarly, Michael thought Q 13.3Sb originally introduc:cd Q 1? ('Lament o~·cr jerusalem?, pp. 109-121.
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in th• Sayings Gospel Q
130
di,..ppearance (of Jesus) and return of the Coming One; the Jack of attention
the intervtning time is understandable given the focus on jesus• rtj~tion, departure, and return in that .say-ing, rather than on the behaviour of his tO
followers during IUs absence. Thus the sayings jusr exami ned (Q 12.39·40 + 12.42-46 and Q 17 + Q 19) are also suggestive of 'assumption' as the christOiogical basis for the expectation that the absent jesus would return asthe Son of man. This is an important possibility, for it allows that the motif of 'assumption and return' - which herein has been proposed as the literary answer offered in Q to rhe problem of the death of Jesus - is present in Q elsewhere than the Jerusalem Lament, and has left its mark compositionally on the document.
A
Christo/ogi
In 1990, Kloppenborg noted that the main themes isolated by Nickelsburg in his srudy of the •wisdom tale')j - uial, ordeal, condemnation, d ivine assistance, vindication, exaltation, acclamation, punishment of persecutors -are aJso found in Q, but deployed not individually in relation to Jesus but corporarely, 'in relation to the colltctivt e.xperiem:e of the community•.J6 Vmdic4tkm is txpressed u riously: the per$(cuttd are, paradoxicaUy, bks!cd {6:22· 2Jb) and are included in the company of God's prophets (6:23c; 11:o49-S1; 13:34JS}. In &pile o( oppo&irion, they $peak wicb the voice of jnus and ulrimatC"Iy, God (1(}.16), and are the oneo wbo may
13:28 29}. Variow aalamdJiQtu a~ prtknt: )e&U$ And john tre idtnti6ed a.s Sophia~ 4
~lldrtn
(7:35); Jesus• lollowers are set above tbc: sages bttau.sc of theit su~rior grasp of rew.lation {10:21 22); "and they a.re pronounced mort b1eMtd fban prophets and kinp brcau.st of wb.at they hav~ witnt$SC'd (10:2.3-24).J7 4
Kloppenborg's point was that although the individual elements of che srory o( jesus' rejection, death, and vindic3tion 3re present in Q, they come to ex-pression neither in narratjve fas hion nor individualized w ltb respect ro Jesus." Kloppenborg did not focus on t he theological (or christological) basis of the Q communit)•'s hope for vlndkat.ion or reward in heaven, howtver. In Q the hope of corporate vindication is always predicated upon identi6cation wlth Jesus . This observation &uggesu that the vindicated and exalted jesus
3$. Niekeb.bufg. R.tsu"~~:lon. lmmort4lity atul Ett:mal Li(r, idem, 'The GmrC'· a.od Functioo of the Markan Passion Narr.u ive•. HTR 73 {1980), pp. 1$3-84. 36. Xlop-penborg. 'Easter Faith', p . 79 (emphasis original). 37. Kloppmbotg, 'Easter faith', p. 79. 38. Kloppcnborg, 'Ea.srer Fairh'• pp. 81-82. Stt abo j.D4 Cron.ao, Tin Birth ()( Cbriui4nil): D~g What H~d in the Yc:arsltf'J'ff'Kdiak,"y After ~.fuauiOff of fuus (San Franci.sc.o: Harpc:rSa.nfrancisco, 1998), p. S03.
Signifiamu of Assumption in Q 13.34-35
131
for Q served to symbolize or represent the comrnu_n ity's hope in a future vindication of their allegiance to Jesus, especially if Q had a theological rationale for Jesus' own post-mortem vindication. Analogies for this may be found in a number of exalted figures in the literature of early j udaism, 6gures which appear to have played such a representative function vis·i-vis the oommuniry of the faithful. Such a comparison ls suggested first o f aU by the corporate view of persecution in Q. As argued a bove, the Q people understood their own rejection, along with the rejecrlon of john and jesus, within the de.uteronomistic paradigm; it appear~ moreover, that they also s.aw the rejection and de;~th of jesus as the culminating instance of prophetic persecution. Several sayings clusters in Q suggest a continuum of prophetic persecution which stretched from the prophets of biblical times to their own day, and which included not only john and Jesus but their own missionaries (Q 11.49-Sl t 7.31-35; 6.22-23).1n addition, diSSSibiliry that the Q people thought their own vindication and ex.altation was cnC3psulared in the vindication and exaltation of Jesus should be in\'esligat-ed. The apoc.alyptic tone of Jesus' pose-mortem vindication in Q 13.3Sb {assumption and parousia) invites a comparison between Q*s post-mortem jesus and exalted figures in apocalyptic literature. Because in jewish literature one who is assumed typically awaits an eschatological role (in an exaJced s1ate} in heaven, h seems likely that Q's expectation of a heavenly reward is predicated on Jesw' polt-rnortem exaltation. The main texts predicting heavenly or eschatological vindication or e>ealtation for the Q community connect such vlndication with this·worldly identification with Jesus me Son of man. Conversely, Q texts predicting other-worldly or eschatolog.ical punishment do $0 on the ba$is of nonrepentance or the rejec:don of God's messengers.n Heavenly vindication i$ mentioned not only in the macarism Q 6.22· 23a, but also elsewhere in Q. In Q 10.15, Jesus declares that Capernaum 'will be brought down to Hades' (i(l.)s ToV {IOOu JCaTa~~ao), but it is also implied that had Capernaum repented (cf. t0.13), they would have been 'exalted tO heaven' (t"'S oopavoo 10.15). Q 12.33-34 advises the hearer to 'store up treasures in heaven', but it is not dear from the context what precisely that entails. Q 14.11, whose presence in Q is disputed, 40 refers (somewhat obliquely) to the exaltation of the humble, and the humiliation of the ex.alred. Q17.33 speaks of 'saving' and 'losing one's life; in what is probably its o riginal conrext~
o"""e.\ou,
39. The i.de:a of cschnologic~l or otber·worldly puni11h.mcnt i.s common in Q: dertructKln by burning iQ 3.7•9, 16·17; 17.34·35); consignment 10 Hades or Gehenna (Q tO. I$; 12.5); t.....ruy deni>l (Q 12.94 aclusoo !rom emry (Q 13.27) or !rom th. esChatological banquet (Q 13.2.8). Tbe criteria for judgment are not aJways stated, but non.. repentance figures on ~Sf twic~ (Q 3.8·9; 10.13). 40. See Kloppcnborg. Q l'•alkis, p. 162.
Post-MorUm Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
132
bc:twe<:n 14.26-27 and '14.34-35, it has to do with t he com and rewards of
identifying with jesus.~' Other Q materials are dearer about the basis for heavenly or escharological reward. First, Q 6.22-23a offers heavenly reward
for those who suffer revilement and perse<:ution 'because of r-hc Son of man•. Second, in Q 12.8-9 the earthly acknowledgment of Jesus by the faithful is correlated to the heavenly acknowledgment of the faithful by jesus, tbe Son of man. Third, the hope of eschatological vindication for the community is present both in the expectation of sah·ation on the day of the Son of rn.an (Q 17 pauim) and in the promise-of a forensic or governing role over Israel (Q 22.28, 30), where, again, ~llegi<1nce to Jesus is rhe dec-isive factor.
I. Representative Figures in Jewish Literature and Q Ex.ahed figures in antiquit}'- patron deities 1 king.s, or redeemer figures- often represented the fate (or bopcs) of the nations or communities which owed them allegiance. Nickelsbu.rg and Collins have shown that exalted figures in several writings- Wisdom 2-5, Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch, and 4 Ezra - serve as mythological expressions of communal hopes:u Collins, emphasizin,g that in ancient thought the heavenly rcaJm was viewed as more 'real' and permanent than the.earthly, a)so notes a 'homology~ berween tht$e worlds: there is both a representative unity and a clear distinction between r.hc exalted figure and che community. 43 Irnporr.andy, rhis is found in Daniel 7: in the vision, 'one like a human being' receives dominion and glory and kingship (7.13 ..14), bur later in the interpretations these are given co 'the holy ones' (7.18) or to 'the people of the holy ones' (7.27)." Collins sees the homology between the earthly and hea,·enly worlds in the Similitudes of E-noch as coming to expression chiefly in the 'Son of man' figure, whom he calls the 'heavenly Doppelganger' of the righteous communiry. 4 s In Wisdom 2-S, and also in the Similitudes, parallel names fo r the exalted figure and the community express this representative relationship. ln Wisdom, the 'righteous one' who so Hers injustice and murder, whose unjust and untimely dear,b is reversed through divine favour, and who stands as an exalted figure in the heavenly oQurt, seems tO be the representative and
4L
For the original Q placement of Q 17.33, see Robln_$0n e: al., Critie.a/ Edition,
pp. 4$6-57. Also to be notl:d are Q 6.3Sb {'so that you nu.y become sons of your fathtr'}, which suggests not heavenly r~rd (pace Kloppcnborg. 'Ea!iter Fa.itb', p. 79) but coherence with dw: dl3t3eteti$lics of the F-ather (Q 6.271. 42. Collins also s~ts that 'Mtlc:hittdck in II QMdch, ... tht man from the sea in 4 E~a 13, -and the Soo of 1.-b n in t~ N~· Teit-a-tMnc• -all {vn(;cion as heavenly 5aviour 6gures
wbo
r~~
the righteow community on rM supttnaru.ral kvd (C'..ollins., A~.s}yplic
lmdginatit>n, p. i06t.
43,
44, 4$.
Collins., A/XXP/ypt~ lnutgiragtio"• pp. 105-06. 186-87, Collins, ApocalyptJ·~ l~tU~giPUIJioft, p. 106. Collins. Apot4/yptk lmdgituJ.tiof,, p. 187.
Significana of A$
Q 13.34-35
133
archetype or the •righteous ones'."' Both tbe. 'righteous one' (Wts. 4.16; 4.20S.S) and the 'righreous' (3.8) will have a role in the j udgment." With both the community and the individual~ although death is an apparent undoing of their hope in God (Wis. 3.2-4; 4.1S-18a), this is not the case: che hope of the 'righteous• in im mortality (3.1, 4) is parnlleled in the rescue of the •nghtt'Ous o ne' from death - or more precisely, a/Ur death (4.10-14). In the Similitudes of Enoch, the exalted 6gure (~llcd 'Righteous One' or ~Anointed One•1 but more frequently ctbat Son of man' or •choS('n One..')
embodies the defining characteristics of the community: 'Righteous One and Chosen One are used in association with the broader categories of "the righteous" and "'the chosen" .·•• In c:ootrast with the Book of Wisdom, in the SimiUtuda there is a complex .set of associations bc:f¥1-•ten the earthly and the heavcn1y worlds.$0 ln Collins• view, this relationship should be understood not in terms of 'corporate personality", bur ' representative unity', with the closest an::~.logues being patton deities in Ancient Near Eastern mythology. Sl The function of 'that Son of man' is defined entirely in the relationship with the earthly community, so that there is also a parallelism of action or, in the words of Geed Theissen, a 'structural homologue' berween the eanhly and heavenly counrerpart:s.S1 Jn Col lin s~ view: Although~ d~ not .share their .suffering, the pattern of hiddeno.ess and re,·clation is (;0tntoon to botb. The {a<;t th~t ~ is presttved frot'll thdr $uf!erintJ$ nuke$ him a figure of purc power and glory and an ideal embodiment of the hopes of the pcnccuttd righteous.. Tbt: effir.:q.doust'le$$ o( the •Son of Man• figl.lle requi.res 1hat he be conceived as other than the community, since he mu.u possess the: power and exaltation wfti
The comparison Of Q's undernanding OFCQrpor~te vindication in relatiOn tO jesus .as a 'rcprescncath·e figure• in analogy with Daniel?, Wisdom 2- S, and
46. For tbe 'righreoU$ one' as 'type', $ee Georgi, ' VC)(p
49. Collins, ' H~'·eoly Representative~, p. 113. 50. A«:otding to Collins, tht: 'holy' and tbe 'choseo' on catth have heavenly counter· p:a.m (the angelic host, 1 £n. 39.5; 51.4; 61.4), as wdJ as a heavenly rtprtsentative in W 'Son of man' figure {'Heavenly ReprneoulivC"', p. 113). 51. Collins, 'tk.tvenJy Represnuative~. pp. 113-H. 52. G. ThelHCP, So~olcgy of E.arJy E'4kftinian Cbritlitlnil:y (Phitadelphill: Fortress. 1978}, p. 121; cited by Collins. 'HeavenJy Represenmriv~·. p. 115.
SJ..
CoUi.oJ.
134
Port-Mortem Vindication of }trus in the Sayings Gospel Q
t.he Similitudes of Enoch is co mmended not only btcause of the similaritie:s in terminology ('Son o£ man' in Daniel and 1 EnodJ), but also because of how ~assumption' figures into the equation (in Wisdom 2- 5 and in 1 Enoch 71}."
What is more., the functio n of the 'Son of man• figure in 1 Enoch as explained by Collins is similar to the se-enario found in Q., wherein the suffering or pertccution - whatever form that may actually have taken - of the community of Jt$·u s' followers is related co that experienced by the prophets and Jobn and by Jesus himself, as sugg~d above; but Jesus has expe.rienced, by means of his assumption, vindlcation and exaltation which will be manifesl at his coming as Son of man. The community's hope to share in this, and to e.xperlenc.e salvation at the esc:haton, ls predic~ued on their continued allegiaiJCC to Jesus. Q does not often depict jesus as an ex.alttd heavenly figure, however, but a hint of a belief in him as such a figure ap~ars in Q 12.8-9, and possibly Q 17.24." In addition, the acclamation of the Coming One (Q lJ.JSb) suggests Jesus returning as a celestial figure. If Q uses assumption to express a belief in jesus' post-mortem vindication and Parous-ia, there are grounds at least for seeing the post-mortem jesus in Q as not only the locus but even the archery~ of the soteriological ho~ reflected in Q, in analogy with representative exalted figures in matc-rhtls just discussed. Three main t<Xts will be analysed: Q 12.8-9; Q 22.28, 30; Q 6.22·23.
Z. Q 12.8-9: Confessing }e.us Publicly T his dif6cult text has generated a great deal of discussion. T he Critic•/ Edition reconstructs it as follows:
(8) nils Os [[ov]] i>)JO~oY'\o[[nJJ iv ·~ol ·~npoclltv TWV av6pwnwv, ·~rrpon&v TWV ayyiht.:Jv .. . (9) 0s 0' QV aplll)aT)TQt ~· t~npoo9tv TWV tX\16pWTIWV, aplll}((9tjotTQI]] i~.mpoo&iv T~v Qyy6Awv ... S-4. Tuckctf, Q and th~ History, pp. 274-76, suggests such a comparison in his diKussion of the Son of man i_n Q as •me perueuttd righteOus sufferer'. in a limited repre-seor.ativc c:.~paciry; $«also Tuc~n, tQ 22:28·30', in Horr~U and l bdcett teds.), CbrisloJogy, Cmttrot.>n:~y Mid Comm.unity, pp. 9.9-116 (11Q-l2). and Tuc.kc:n. "The Son of Man aod Daniel 7: Q and Jn.u•". in Lindemann (cd.), The Stlyings Souru Q 4ltd lbe Historiul Jesus, pp. 371-91 (376-81). Sec also A. Jitvineo, 'jesu.
Signi{icanc• of Assumption in Q 13.34-35
135
(8) Anyone who [[may]J speak o ut for me in public, [[the son of humanity]] will also speak out for him before the angels ... (9) But whoever may deny me in publio (!will bell den[[ledJI before the angels ..." 'Son of mao' is lacking in Mr. 10.32, but rhere are good ground• for considcrin,g that it was in Q. Probably the most significant is rhe apparent distinction between ]C$US ('me') and the 'Son of man•.S1 The expression also occurs in the overlap text Mk 8.38, which may be: shown on other grounds to be independent of the Q version of the saying. n Furthermore, Matthew rends
generally to substitute the first person pronoun for •Son of man'/' but the use here of the Matt haean •my Father in heaven' rather than 'angels' could
also have prompted the evangelist co replace 0 uiOs ToU clv6pc.lnov with iyW (in keeping with the shift from third to first person)." Earlier scholarship presumed a widely di$$eminatc:d idea about an exalted 'Son of man' figure," to which J esus himself referred. Sine< Q 12.8-9 implies a dist inction between the two~ Bultmann argued for the saying's authenticiry.u As discussed above, scholars such as TOOt maintained that early Christians identiflc:d this 'Son o f man' figure: with Jesus on the basis of tbeir Easter e)(pe:rience.') Thlslinc of interpretation has rightly f01llc:n our
of favou; with most discussions of the-'Son of man' question nowadays beginning from idiomatic Aramaic usage, not from an assumed religioushistorical bac kground .~ But Collins bas argued pers1.1asivdy that whereas
56. Robinson cc al"" CtitiC4l Edi:ion, pp. 304-07. Oui~ ToU O.vepWJrOV is given a (CI raring of ¢enain ry, owing .u lean in pan ro Paul Hoffm.a nn'.s in.sm-enc.e on the Matthun wording: P. Hoffmann, 'J tstrt venus Mensc:hcnsohn: Matthiu.s IO,l2f und di<" synoptiscbe McDKbtnwhn·Gbcrlieferong', in P. Fted\er and L. Obertinner (td$.), Salt ckr frM - l.icht dtt Wtlt: Extgrtisdn StuJien tum Miltthauutl{lngtlium (mtschrifr A. VOgtl~ Srungart; Katbolitcbts 8ibdwcck, 1991), pp. 165 ..202; P. Hoft'maon ct ~J., "Confessing or Denying'. i,n_C. Heil (td.), Q 12.:8·12: Conf~uing or Denying; Speaking against tht Holy Spirit.; Htarittgslufort SY""gope-1 (Doc:umenta Q; Lcuven: Pttters, J997}. pp. J-42S (210-38); P. Hofimann, 'CXr M<"nsc:bmsohn in Lukas 12:8', NTS 44 ( 1998), pp. 357..79 (366-70). 51. So Catthpole, 'An&clic Son o£ M-an', p. 255. 58. S<"c H.j. ck Jongr, 'Th<" Sa.,iags. on Confeuing and OenyingJcsU$ ln Q 12:8~9 aDd Mark 8:38', in W.L. Pet<"rson tt at. («<s-.). $Qyi.n:s of /•sus: Qmoniul aru! NOif-.ca'ltOftical (mucrik T. Baardo; NovTSup, 89; Lei
5« Bulcmann, History) pp. 112, 128, 151- 51.
63. T<, S... of.\14•, pp. S6-S7 (oo Q 12.8·9), 252-SJ. S..: RobJo.oo, 'Son of Mao', pp. 32$-27. 64. See Ha~ Son of Mtm Tr.Jilio,, pp. 25~59 .
136
Post-Mort#!m Vindieation of jesus in the Sayir~gs Gospel Q
there may not have been an established and widely disseminated Son of man 'idea• in circulation before o r by the rurn of dle era, there: are indications that by then there were 'conunon assumptions' a bout t he meaning of the 'one likt. a son of man• jn DanjcJ 7."' Questions of authenticity aside, tr is possible that Q 12.8 did distinguish between Jesus and the Son of man at an early stage in its tradition history. Jacobson, for insrance, suggestS t hat in both 12.8-9 and 12.10 the Sott of man 'is simply the heavenly prostcutor who a rgues the case before t he divine judge. But neither in Q 12.8-9 nor 12.10 is jesus identified with this he;~venly prosecutor figure'.'6 For Jacobson, as for Bulcmann, this distinction is evidence that these verses are 'relatively early'.11 Similarly, Catchpole sees the distioction between Jesus and the Son of man as evid~nce for the s..aying's primitivity (even authemiciry). 61 While traditlon~his torically it may be apt to observe such a distinction, the context of the rest of 6nal Q- in which jesus is the Son of man- means the saying should be interpreted in that light. How can an identification bet¥.•ec:n jesus and the Son of man of Q 12.8-9 be understood? For Robinson, who sees no distinction berween the speaker and the Son of man in Q 12.8~9, the self·referemial use of 'Son of man' in Q is c,ritical. He thin.ks the e~pressioo is used sclf-rc:fc:rcntlally here as in other Q sayings (Q 6.22; 7.34; 9.58; I 1.30; even 12.1 0). Those .,·ho coniess the 'buman•, understood u a (:amili.a r re(ertnct I() Jc:~us perhaps b.ack ro j e, ui himk!U, will find him the re ac the judgment a' their cbac-.u;ter wita.ess, wbc:reas those who deny him will ~ denounced bt• him .u the judgmeru (~ in Q 13.25-ln, This role of the 'son of man', jtsus, engendered other '$on of man• u.yings 3S$ocl:ated w ith 1M e$dl~tologic.a l judgmem, ... rht elllCbatologicaf or prophetic (correlatives) (Q 17.24. 26, 30)."
gc>i~
This explains (arguably) the development of the eschatological Son of mao $ayings in Q, but the view of t.be Son of man in 12.8·9 as character witness does not make sense in light of other sayings in Q fo r which the Son of man comes as judge (including Q 12.39-40, 42-46: 17.24, 26, 30: ao.d possibly, with the speaker as o ipxo~
65. 66.
67. 68.
Co!Jins,SuptM4mdStgr, p. 175. ja<:obson, First Co!pel, p. 188. jac;obson, First Gospel, p. \ 89. Catcbpol<, "Angelic Son of Man', pp. 259~0.
Robimon, 'Evalustion', in HeiJ (ed.), Q 12:8· 12., p. 209. Xe Hare, Scm of MDn Tt~ulilion, p. 223, who disag.ret:$ with die ¥iew of 'Son o( man· :1.$ character wiUle:S$ in Q 12.8. arg"ing that this saying's tradoe:nts aeknowkdged 'the rism jesus as thl: Christ, tbc eschatologOI king' . 69. 70.
71.
Uro, 'Apoalypr;.:Symbolism', p. I03.
Signi(ie<Jna of AsswmptiQn in Q 13.34-JS
137
betw..n the 'Son of man' and 'me' to be underSI.ood? Here Q 6.22 offer> some help. There, 'Son of man' refttS ro jtsus u an eanhly figure, aUcgianee to whom in the faa of pen«urion -was the criterion for heavenly reward. In Q 12.8·9, rhere is a similar correlation between allegiancen to the earthly
6gure Cme'), and reward whtc.h comes by means of the heavenly 6gurt (•Soo of man'), whether be functions as judge or advocate. ThuJ the disrinaion need not bt betw«n Jesus and the Son of man as rwo different persons (even if such a distinction w.ts made during the uadition hisrory or the saying} but rather between different functions or phases of jesus' existence." lnvenigadng the uying at the ~arli<st level of it$ tradition history, C.tchpole suggesred that the Son of man figure in this saying is the 'heavenly gucarontor' of the eanhly jesus~ an angelic being occing at che heavenly coumcrpan or sponsor, an idea present elsewhere (e.g., Tob. 12.15; 1 En. 104. 1; Qnd Lk. 1.19) which amounts to 'an individu•lising of the o ld idea of an angelic ruler for cacb nation {cf. Dan. I 0.11; 12. 1; Sir. 17. 17)'." Catchpole considers that Daniel 7 and Mr. 18.10 both s uggest this kind of relarionship between angelic figwes and human beings o r communitjes.n This sug;senjon about the Son of man'$ function as a representative figure here is important, although rwo adjusllll jesus as both e.a rthly teacher and heavenly 6gure, and use> 'Son of man' freely for both pbaS<s of his existence. To the •ccond point, some darificJtion it required, even apart from rhis obscrvar:ion. Catchpole suggested, relying mainly o n Mt. 18.10, chat the rcprescnuuivc relationship is between Jcsut 11.nd the Son of man, his heavenly counterpart or sponsor; this relationship is extended co the "confe1sins group who together fwith Jesutl conStitute the community for whose intertSTS and security the Son of man vouch~ in heaven' .'• Mt. 18.10 docs indeed appear lO be evidence for a belief in a ngelic rtpresentative:s for
72.
C.cdl..,&......., 1ustiDcd U. his uw..mc. ,.,., m. ooui>Wrr of~ and
dmJinlnplito ............1-~oi~lrd~wd>' ~thtttlwl • lotpllttrina for the c.ommunitfs allcgia.oa:.. cYc::D thouch thst 1C!rmS co be the cax with Q I l.IH 2. Th,. di.Oplall;p ;s do< ru..wn.atsl ;.,.,. (C.cdlpolt, 'l...dic Soo of Man', 1>9· 257...19; , ....... ~ 258~
7J. So Polog. Clmuo/ogi<, p. II<; Sdou... Si'"'U..,.•II•, p. 68; Hollmann, Shod;.., S.. aloo C.t. Ul-l6; Fkdd
·" I.
118. 7<.
?S. 16.
C.tn', p. 260. C.tc:hpole. 'Angelie Son of Man', pp.l,l -62. 264, and UO, re11pa:~ivcly. ~Atchpol~:,
'AngcJicSon of Man', p. 261.
138
Post-Mortem Vindi
jndividual humans." However, theotht,r main text adduced by Catchpole is Daniel 7, where the 'one like a son of man' i·S representative of a community, 'the holy ones of the Most High'.''
The. question here is thus whether Mt. 18.10 or Daniel 7 is t he bener analogy: is the Son of man's function in confessin.g and denying directed towards jesus or the community? As Catchpole rightly argues, 'the o~ol.oytiv/irpvtio8al complex of ideas ... frequently included a community
awareness'." ln addition, he notes that the point of the saying is sotcriologi,al, with response tO Je.sus being the key issue., and that this conforms well with other Q ma<erials (especially Q 6.47-49) ... The saying, then, is about communiry salvation at the judgment, a nd the crirerion is allegianu to Jesus, expressed by means of confession, probably in some kind of public forum (Q 12.11· 12). Given this community emphasis in Q 12.8·9, why understand the Son of man as •rhe angelic counterpart o f Jesus and, by extension, of those attached to him in discipleship'?t1 This either introduces a mediacor Uesus) inco the usual relationship between representative figure and ~ommuniry (following Daniel 7), or it adds a community aspect not consistent with the idea of a personal heavenly representative (foiJowing ML 18.1 0). Furthermore, on Catchpole's construal of Q 12.8·9, it is still not clear why the Son of man is the heavenly represemative of Jesus, particu~ larly b«:ause representative figur« in the texts discussed above provide an otherworldly foundation for the hopes of the community. These observation$ support the view that the Son of man is the heavenly 6gure who represents the community whose allegiance to (the earthly) jesus is being tested (Q 12.2· 12). The representative function of jesus lhc Son of man is clearer, however, in Q's conduding .saying.
3. Q 22.28, 30: judging the Twelve Tribes The presence of this pertcope in Q has sometimes been questioned, as has its locadon,u though most scholars believe it was the concluding saying.n 77.
W.O. Davits and D.C. Allison, 11u Gosptl At:cording to $dint Afdnhtw (ICC;
3 ...,!,,; £4inbu
Significanu of As.umptio~ ;,. Q I J.J4.J$
139
Matthew and L11ke dill
which lie outside the purview of the present investigation. One which does no1is whether Q 22.30 originally contained 'Son of man' (so Mt. 19.28b). A Mmhaca.n double!, which likewise deocribes the Son of man sitting 'upon the 1hrone of his glory' (Mt. 25.31), has led mos1scholars 10 1hink that Manhew added 'Son of man' to t9.28b.u This is probably correct, but for the: prcse:ot purposes the more imponant question is how Q originally formulated the condi1ion for receiving the judging role (Q 22.28): does Ma1thew (Wris oi «•oAou8rioovris110•l or Lllke (v~ils 60 ian oi 6oa~tlltll!)oci>ns ~·T' ij.IO\j i• TOtf mopaOJJQis IJOU) give the closer reading 10 thai of Q?" Fleddcrmann suggests on grounds of vocabulary that luke's vusion is redactio~ 10 that 'something like ciJTt5 ~tT' i~ou expresses more or less •he same ide<~'." Q 14.2? certainly supporu lhi$. On these ground• Q 22.28, JO con•idut a 'judging' role for the community as a reward for allegianct ro Jesu.s. Wha1 exactly 1his judging role entails is undcar. One poosibiliry is the usual sense of determining guih ar tht final judgment,•• choush some: havt sug,gc:sted that ..governing• i.s more appropriate bert." tn favo ur of the latter solution are materials such as Ps<. Sol. 1? .26, which looks ahead to 1he
83.
LOhrmann, Ktddlticm, p. 75; lCioppenbora,. PormotkHt. p. 95; H.
F\~dumann,
'l1te End of Q', SBLSP 2' (1990), pp. 1-10; JGdt, Compos/tioo, pp. 294-,S; Tuckeot, 'Q
22,18·30', pp. 100, 10~; Zelko; 'z.kwth hnel•'• p. 362. 84. RobiMOn ft al., CritiuJ Etliti<m,. pp. S5s-6J. IS. Soc HoffmaDD ct. aJ., Q lz,ll . .!0, pp. 336-79: TU, p. 178; f1c.dduma.n.n, 'End of Q', p. I ; P. Hoffm.nn. 'Hen.dw:r ockr Richcc:r QMr bndl', ift G~ ~ a:od K.. W~ (nb..J, J• wiWI Ntt~t: c::Jwisllit W..t. (Fnachrift Ill'. Sduov, Nnlld«hca· VI•,..., ~ I"IJ. pp. 2S~ (26J~ Kl"!>penbo<&. f.x<=o~ti>of Q, p. 192; :Z.Ii<• 'ZukW>It llrub', p. Ced.J. 363: J. Voru Q •..t tb< Huroric.>IJ•r.u. n. I'. S.. jocoboon, First Gosp.l, p. 248; R. Honley, 'Social Conlli Rb
u..,.....,..
s.y,.,,
.,..,kJ.,
1995), pp. J?-51(44-SI).
140
Post·Morlem Vindi
Messiah restoring .and judging (ruling) the rribes of the people? as well as other texrs predicting a s--i milar role for tht faithful (e.g., Dan. 7.13·14, 18, 22; 1 En. 62.1, 14; R.v. 3.21 ), which focus 'on o ruling function rather than the administration of justict' .to In addition, some think that 'thrones• - oot to mcntjon whatever stood as the object in 22.18 - suggests the e..ootablishment of a kingdom, rather than a judgment scenario.' 1 However, nowhere else in t he New Te$tament is the verb Kpivc.> or its cognates used in chis sense/l and r:p1 n)5 is used in Q wberc there is a negative outcome for the o ne(s)
being judgcd.n Fleddermann rightly notes rhat the 'ruling' or 'governing' inte-rpre.t atlon of Kph10VTE5 requires a 'reconstituted (sr
90. Jacobson, Fitst Cos~l. p, 248, although I Enoth 62 deal$ with tht condemnation al'ld anrtihll.1tion of wicked ru~ U En.. 62.11·13); rdcrC'-OC.C'S to •righteous and dttt' (vv. 14-16) do nol ck2rly have a ruJing function i_n view. 91. J:acobtlon, Pirst G()fPt:/, p. 248. 92.
PI>· 3$5-92 (372); Kloppenborg. &cav•#ng Q. p. 192; Thd<en, 'Q 22:28-30', p. 103. S.• Q 6.37; 12.58; 11.31-32. 93.
Zel~ 'Zult-unh lstaeiS", p.363: Q 11.19; 12.$8.
Fleddc:rmann, 'End ofQ', p. 8;Zdkr, '2:u.kuoft Jsuelt'. Tbe use o( ~~).).c.) in Lie 6.22 could be a Q refe.ren« tO expuJsion from syt'l.1gog~o~<s) but it probably wt5 not originally io Q; S« Zdl«, 'Zukunft W ads', p. 364. 96. Set Acdderman~ 'End of Q', p. 10; TU(:Iteu, Q and the Hi#ory, pp. 141-4~ K&oppenborg, F.xC4Wirlng Q, p. 381. Kirk, Composition, pp, 289- 308, Stc.'S csc.hatologicaJ rC'fcu.al u fhc promiocm tbl::me of~ major co!D.pOiitional unit be identi6e$ as Q 12-22. 97. Fkdder.mann, 'End o( Q'. p. 10; &« simi.l.:uly Klf)ppenbort../Vrmatio."~ p. 9$. 98. Colli.OJ, 1-ieavdlly Rep!C$C'Otatin:', p. 115. 94. 9$.
SignifiC411ce of Assumption in Q 13.34-35
141
4. Q 6.22-23: Great is Your Reward in Heaven The Q Sermon's fourth mocorism connects allegiance co Jesus (che Son of man), as shown by being per!>tcuted for his sake, with a heavenly reward . (22) ~OKaptoi ion (>TO:V OVnou. (23) xo:lpm Ko:i flayo:Mt&o8<1J, C>Tt 0 ~·o90s -~Olv ITOAUs iv T.;i oVpav.;i· oi/Tc:.Js yap l[i6i"'~avJI TaUs npo$jTos TaUS rrpo u~wv.
([Kae·n
'"'"'"TOO
TOU
(22) Blessed ore you when they insulc and [[persecucell you, and [[say every kind of]) evil [[againscJJ you becau$C of che son of humanity. (23) Be glad and ([exulc]], for vase is your reward in heaven. Foe chis is how rbey ([perscx:utedll the prophets who wece before you."
Q 6.22 shows that ostracism, persecution, and
~nathcmadzatioo
were
expected 'on accounc of' (iVEKiY) che Son of man. ' 00 Q 6.23a continues wich
an exhortation to rejoice, and a reason: •because your reward is great in heaven'. This oonn.ects the idea of heavenly reward with earrhly suffering lor the sake of t he Son of mon. The usc of 'Son of man' here indicates t hat jesus ls cemral to the reward: allegjance to him is the ctirerio·n for receiving heavenly rew:~rd, t hough possibl)' Jesus is also in view as the one who wiU dispense such reward (as a lso in Q 12 . 8~9). 101 Yet •Son of man' in 6.22 dots not refer to the heavenly o r coming Son of man (see alsoQ 7.34; 9.58; 11.30, probably; 12. 10, possibly). Yet irs use here is not insignificat1t if ocher texts in Q -associate 'Son of mao~ with coming judg:menc and the dispensation of other-worldly recompe-nse. The 'biStorieal' reference to the mistreatment of prophets probably constitutes a deureronomisrlc :1ddition,101 probably prompted by the reference w persecution in 6.22, though there may be another dimension to the redactional addition. If - and this i$ t'O anticipate somewhat the. re!:iults of the investjgation of thcs.c three te)Ct:S - it is correct tha t the hope of coq><>rate vindication in Q is based on a conviction about Jesus' vindication, the addition was perhaps prompttd by the fact that both persecution (as tht dcutcconomisti_c: materials suggest.) and vindication were understood c:orpcr rately by those who framed Q. Or; co puc ir dillerenrly, Q presented a direct 99.
Robinson ct aL, Critie.al f;dition, pp. 50-53.
100. On the origia..liey of 'Son of Man' in Q 6.22, sec: Schulz, Spruchquelk, p. 4S3; j.S. KloppenbQrg, 'Blessing :tnd M.:~~ rg.itWi ry: The "P~rse.:ution Bt:atitudt• iJl Q. Thomu., ~nd
Early C hrist-ianity' , Forum 2 (1986), pp. 36-56 (41); Fledd«mlll'ln, 'Conf~sin& and Oeoying', p. 610~ Tud~n, Q 4N1 the History, p. J 80 n. $0. 101. Jn :addition, the •day' ot W 'coming' of th~ Son of m:t.n is, in Q. the occasion of juc:lg.tnent and chr ditlpet1$.1tion of JC"WI!rd and putli$h1
Q 19 p.wim). 102. Set- ~k, Israel, pp. 25?-'0; KJoppmborg, Formation, p. CostJd~ pp. 1~1; Tuckm. Q att.d the History, p. 180.
113; Jacobwn, Fint
142
Post-Mortem Vindk
cofrelation bctwc:en Jesus' rwin fate of rejection and vindication, and a similar fate for the community.
S. lmpli
Q been a clear distinction drawn between jesus on the ont hand
and his followers on che ocher. He and he alone is the SM. Yet the explano.rion and rM tdOiutjon of th~t tbtodicy problem (aotd by rhe Q Cbriniant in rhtir pr$nf situation is tbe same a.s [the] r~olurion for Jesus h.i.mself: juu as he too will act a• judge over Otheu who tuv~ not res-ponded, iO tOO will th(oy. J04
Tuckett rightly erophasites that jesus is not a corporate figure like those in Daniel 7 or the Similitudes of Enoch; ye~ the •sM sayings provide a "'srructuraJ homolog-ue" with the experience of his followe('S'. 10s Give:n the presence of assumption language in Wisdom 2-5, the Similitudes (though probably secondarily), and Q, it could be inferred that 'assumption' in these texts was the means by which an •e<Jrrhly' figure was insraiJed a.s a re:pre.se:nrative heavenly figure. This might be ro press the point roo far, for Qat leas~. For Qthe vindicotrion or lcgitim~rion of jesus, present and future, pro\'ides the basis for the vindication of the community: Jesus' persecution and rejection were reversed, and so will the p;u:·aUel experiences of the community, upon his return as the Son of man. Here again conclusions must remain tentath'e, because while assumption language is used ln connection with eschatological function in Q 13.34-35, in texts just examined the locus of vindication is precisely thar eschatological function of Jesu.s the Son of man; the connection to •assumption~ can only be made. by implication. Nor is assurnptioo extended from the individual '(.~.ase' o f jes-us to become
me
103. See Kloppenborg. f
Significance of Assumption in Q 13.34-35
143
part of th~ community's eschatological hope in Q asl" possibly, in 1 Tbess. 4.17. 1 ~ Rather, as in Luke·Acts, jc:sus' assumption is nor a paradigm for the vindication of the fai thful community, but provides the means whereby it ultimately is actuali:ted; for the assumption of jesus is conn~ud in Q 13.35 with his return as the Coming One, when followers would be rewarded for
Q 11.29·30: The Sign of Jonah ln his essay 'EmrUckung zur Ankunft als Menschensohn', Zeller s uggeste-d that the 'Sign of Jonah' refers to both rescue from death and coming judgment, with assumption as the point of the comparison between Jonah and the Son of man. As reconstructed in the Critical Edition, Q 1 1.29·30 reads a s followo:
(2.9) (foi)OI .. (lol1Tovl) .. · q y&voix aim) y&wix 1TOliTJpCx •. ianv· "'l~•lov ~~nl, •oi CJilllii011 oo &>ellotuiTo,~ "'l~•lov, ooT"'S" iCJTal ((s TOO irvllpWlTOII TOY'"'~ TcWrn. Bur .. [fhe said]) .. : This generation is an evll .• ge.neration; it demands a sign, but a sign wiU not be given to it - except the sign of Jonah! For as Jonah became to the Ninevites a sign, so [[also)] will
The sayin.g is nororiou$ly difficult to inrerprec, and has given rise to a large body of secondary literarure. ' 01 Tradition-historical questions have resulted in
106. SetJ. P1evn.ik, 'The Taking Up of the Faithful:~~nd rhe R~wrection of the I>Hd i.n I Tll<ssaloruans H 3-18', CBQ ~6)1984), pp. 27•-8J;.vmp;u< AJ. Malh<:rbc, Tho L
r the~ of Optrci'~w in 1 4.17. ln Q 17.34-35, 1rapa).a~ $U88tst$ not chto assumption of r~ f:aithful bur the sW«ping ~W2Y of rht ces.t, as in Genoi5 19; ~ KJoppeobor&, 'Symbolic: Eschatology md the Apoealypricism o( Q', HTR 80 ( 1 937~
The••·
pp. 287-.\06 (.\02-3). 107. Robins<>n et at..• Critkdl Edition. pp. 2:48-St. 108. For swveyll of schol ars.hip~ s.ct A. VOgtk, ·Oer Spruch ''Om Jonaszekben'. in
Das EwngcUum utsd die E.vangcUen: Bcltrate %W1 £vat~gtlirnforsc.bunt (DUs.s.cddorf: Pam:tos, 1971), pp. 103-.36; Edwards, Sign of)ONb, pp. 6-2.4; S. Chow, 1M S,'p ()/ ]OMb Ruonsidntd: A Shldy of lu ldulcing in tM Gostnl Trilditions (Con.8NT, 21; Stockholm: AIR.1q•ist ac Wikscll, 1995).
144
PI>St-Mortem Vindication ofJesus in the Sayings Gosptl Q
widely diverging opinions concerning the original form of the saying and its subsequent redaction.'~ Discussions of the $3ying ln Q tend to go one of two ways. Some see the 'Son of man• reference as present, and the future 1,·erbs in 11.29-30 as logical or gnomic futures, with the t.ertium comparationis (on the basis of Q 11.32) being repentance proclamation, 110 or judgmem proc)a_mation .'" O thers rhink the future verbs and the refecc:oce tO the Son of man are. eschatological: che 'sign of Jonah' is the Son of man coming in judgment at the Parousia.m In the past, these readings have 5ometimts seen 'resurrection' as the tertium compar11tionis (with or without help from Mt. 12.40), and as the basis for t he confession of Jesus as the Son of man.uJ Zeller began by observing that the saying does not negate a sign entirely, bur promises one.11 • The •sign of Jonah• - which he (rightly} took as an cpcxegeticaJ genith•c 11S - has tO be a •real' ('wirklich'} sign, thus excluding solutions which take the sign as Jesus• repentance.. preacbing. Zeller a lso insisted that the future verbs in 11.29-30 (001h}oE'fOt, EcTal ) arc eschatological futures. rather than gnomic or logical furures.11 ' Others have argued similarly. Rich:ud Edwards a.fgued that Q 11.2.9 ..JO has a future orientation because it deploys the 'eschatological correlative' form he-thought originated with the Q community.' 17 This form in Q 'compares the coming of the Son of man with the judgment which fell upon the contemporaries of Noah, Lot and Jonah .... ln every case, the coming of the Son of man ls proclaimed because of the judgment ro be expected on his atrival: m Datyl Schrnidt, however, confirmed rhat the correlative form occurs frequently in t he Sepruagint. 119 109. Sot llihrmann. Rtdaktion, pp. 34-43; Schilrm1nn, •son ofM;an Title', pp. 83-84; KlopJM:nbor,g, Formation. p. t33.; Tuc:.kett, Q ami tht: Hist-ory. p. 2.60. 110. So, for inst.tn«:, Tuck~ Q and tht HistOf')', p. 266. 111. Stt Kloppenbor&. Formation, pp. l 32-3-4; j-acobson. First Cospel, p. 165. 112. &.hro.11nn.., Hislory, p. 118; TOdt,S<m o/ Man, pp. 270-71; Liihnna.nn. Re.dakflon, pp. 40-42; 1-toffmann, Studkn, pp. 157, 181; Sato. Q und Prophttie., p. 283; Catebpo~. Q11est, p. 2.-46. J 13. See Edwards, Sip of)Ott4h. pp. S+-51, following T(Xit, Son of Man, p. 231; see tlso Xhtinnaan, •son of Man Tide'. p. 83. Mor~ re<:rntly. stet e.g., Chow, S1'gn 6( }OMb Rtronsiderr:d, pp. t67-74i 'ompare: Wright, ' Resurrection in Q?', p. 94: 'the rt3urrectioo (If the Soo of Man, $CC:Jl .u future from the pe-rspecth·e of the .saying in the mouth of ~ ptt·E:Istt:t j tsUt, will be- tht equivalent •s.ig.n"•. 114. Zellcro 'Entriidumg", p. 520. a. Catc:hpoie, QtUst, pp.l-45-47, who chinks thto 'iign of joruab' amoWlcs to~ refusal of ;a sign 3$ 2 warning o( the Son o( rmn'$ coming. llS. Zdkr, ''Eotriic:kung', p. 520; ao also Schiirmann, 'Son of Man lid~·, p. 83 n. 49. 'fbi: saying requires ;an epe:x-egedcal reading. s.ince Jonah •bc<.:amc• (iyiwTo, v, 30), rather than 'gave' (compare oV 6oeQolTOI, v. 29), a s.ign tO the Ninevitcs. Tbus, since v. 30 relatfl: the Son of m.sn to the sign of (th.at is, oonsisring in}Jon.ab (oiin.>s iOTal ka h, 'this ~gn wili be tbe Son of man bim3elf' (Zeller. ··Entrii<:kung'. p. 520; author's translation). 116. Zelle~; 'l!.nrrik kung·, p. 520. 117. Ed:wuds, Sign ofJonah, pp. 4.9• .SS; Tuckett however di:sputt11 how clOJcly parallel are tbe oorrelativcs ln Q 17 to Q 11.30 (Q t~nd the History, p. 2.61). I 18. Edwards, Sign ofJonah, p. 53. 119. D. Schmidt, •The-. LXX G.attuqg .. Prophetic Corrdativt"', JBL 96 (t9n). pp. 517-21.
Signi(ieanu of A"umption in Q !3.34-35
145
Furthermore, the correlatives isolated by Schmjdr do nol aU refer to action in the dismnt or eschatological fu ture, as do Q 17.24, 26, 30. " 0 ln addition, sayings about 'this generation' a.re- not exclu.sively about the eschatological judgment (see Q 7.31 -35), but when they do, rhe focus is on their activit)' in the present as the basis for condemnation in tbc future. Q 11.31, 32 state
thar 'this generation' will be wndemned at the judgment by the Queen of the: South and by the Ninevites; they responded pOsitively co emissaries
o£ Wisdom (Solomon and Jonah}, but 'this generation' did not. 'Behold, something greater ... is here' (i600 rrA£1ov ... cScSt.) focuses on the pr.esc:nt reaction of 'this generation' {especially when read together with Q 7.31-35). Even if Q 11.31-32 reptesenl$ a redactional addition to Q 11.29-30, the perspective it offers on 'this generar-ion' is still important for the meaning of that term in Q 11.29~30. Thus an e$Cbal'ologkal reading of the future verbs in Q 11.29-30 is noc required, nor r~ommended> by the presence of ~this generation• in the saying or its contexL Zeller also observed thar v. 29 is a judgmenr saying> with both an •accusation? and a "threat'; t he th reat is developed in v. 30. Since 'thisgeneration> is both criticized for demanding. a sign, and then told it would be given one as an exception, Zeller argued that 'the s ign that legitimates Jesus signifies judgment for the 11evil generation"'. 121 The sign_1 [hen, is the Son of man himself ooming in eschatological judgment. The form-critical observation is ,.aJid, as is the: implication that the 'sign' h:u to do with j udgment -but only on chc grounds that Jonah and jesus both proclaimed an imminent judgment; it does not follow rhnt the Son of man was to become a sign to 'this gcneratioo' at his eKhatological manife.natlon as judge. This '·iew must dep wots rescued from death {and this is depic:ted in some sourc:.es as an 120. Xloppenhorg. fOtmrttion. U2; so al100 Tuckt:n, Q 11nd tJu History, p. 26 L The corrdatives in Q also ap~.ar to have differt11t empb~ t;ee H.f. Sayer. jc1us' Predktiom o{Vindic.:Jt;on anJ Restm8cMn (WtJN'T, 1120; Jubingm: Mohr Sicbcck> 1986), p. 123.
12\. Z.ll<; 'E.nullckung', p. 521; cf. Schul?, Sp""""'"'lk, pp. 254-56, •nd j acobian, First Gosp81, p. 16S, who argues that cbe sign of Jonah ts punitive for 'thi~> generation' bur doe& nc>t legjtim.ate jesus; it only signifie3 the elld. t22. 2<11<; 'Entrikk-·, p. 524. 1.23. Zdk-r. 'F.ntr\iock-ung'• p. 524.
146
Post-Monem Vmdicotion of jesus in the Sa)ings Gospel Q
assumption~
in order to come to the Nincvites as one t hereby authorized by God. This rescue from death is depicted in some. sources as an assumption: Jon. 2.7 MT describes it as an ascent (using ;;?.u as in 2 Kgs 2.1), as does Jon. 2 .7 LXX (all 4>8opix ~c.>iis ~oo). Later Jewish traditions identified Jonah wirh rbe son of the widow of Zarephath raised by Elijah (1 Kgs 17.1 7-24) and/or held thar he entered rhe Garden of Eden alive (Midr. Ps. 26.7; compare D.,., Er. Zut. 1). These ore helpfu l observations ..pecially in light of the poosibility that Q 13.35 used assumprion language in relarion to Jesus' post·morcem vindication. But Jonah is not depicted as a n eschatological figure of judgment as is the Son of man or Coming One of Q:
'Jonah's preaching was intended to aven judgment; the Son of man will bring judgment. ' 114 Both jesus and Jonah announced j udgment, but thi$ does not suffice for Zeller's reading of Q 11.29-30, since be takes the future verbs
eschatologically.m Although the grounds arc slim for ar guing that cscharological function is whar connects Jonah and the Son of man in Q 11-29-30, Zeller's work with this saying pro>; des some helpful insights; first, he correctly notes thar tile sign of Jonah is the Son of man, as opposed to some sign given by him; second, ZeUer is correct thac the saying is form ulated as an announcement of judgment, though this need not require that the fu ture verbs be taken
esc::hatologically. A useful way forward is ro investigate points of similaricy between Q's view o f Jesus and uaditions about Jonah, 114 while allowing that the comparison may be multivalent. Three points of similariry will be discus5
Most discussions of Q 11.29·30 focus o n Q 11.32 as a clue to its iorcrpretation: the Ninevites: repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and they will rise to condemn ~this generation, ar the judgment because 'something grea ter than Jonah is hc.c'. Though Q 11.31-32 are sometimes considered a subsequenr addition to the saying, 127 even so they clarify how the saying was understood at least by the redotctoL The 'proclamation of Jonah' is raised explicitly, and the responses of the Ninevites and ~this generation~ a.re conuaSted. This is the basi! of readings that take repentance proclamation as the point of comparison in Q 11.29·30. 1U Neither Joo.-.b nor tbe jesus 124. TUckett. Q and tlk Hjjrory, p. 263. U.S. Set tbe ob~s rai.scd by Tudu:n, Q andY,~ History, pp. 263-64 n. 86. 126. for~ d<eJt tmd Commmtary, p. SJll.
5;1f"i{iCilnco of A.,wnprion in
Q IJ.H-35
147
of Q actually preach repentance; rather, both preach judgment. In both cases the hearers must infer that rcpc:orancc is the appropriate rcsponie. Jonah's message in Nineveh was simply, •forty days more, and Nint\'tb shall be overthrown' Uon. 3.4). Other Jewish JOUrttS sugg<&t likewise thar his message was only about the coming dc5ltuction of Nineveh Uos. Ant. 9.2 14; de )ono 103-04; Li•. Proph. J0.3).ut Similarly, in Q, }<&us docs little outright repentance preochina.'" On the other hand, a good deal of the sayings material directed (ostc:nJibly, at lean} to oursiders rakes the form either of woes or of judgment sayings, as in Q 11.29·30. This is not to suggest. however. that the rcpc:nr2nc:c: of 'this generation' (how"e.r th~ opponents •~ crtviu&cd) was not desired; as outlined above.. the use of the dcutc.ronomisric thcma of the reieajon and m~Udcr of propbrts in Q was probably intended to provoke repentance. Jonah and Q's Jesus both foretell the desuuaion of ciri<& Ucruulem and Nineveh). But in the U.... of the Prophet>, Jonah also fo rctc:lls the desuomon of ]erusakm: And M pY~ a ponenc (Tipot) cooccrnina jctw;ah:m :and tbt whole land, tb.at whenever lhcy should trc: 1 s:rooe cryinJ OQt pi•.coutly the cOd was tt band. And whenever they Jboukl Me aU the Grntikt in jeN.Jalcm, the tMirt city would be raud to rho: sround. jLil< Prop.~~. 10.10- 111 1"
A similar uadition also ap~au in the proem to l.Amtn.tatlons R4bbab. uz Acc:ording tO G. Schmin, tbit is the common ground prc.tumed by the 'Sign o( Jonah' saying: bmh gave an oracle aga_insr jc.tusalem.uJ This is an intriguing poosibiliry, but Q 11.29-30 require$ an interpretation in which the 'sign of Jonah' is the propher a11ign .
2. The Piety and R"1>ml4••• of Gtmtiles Q 11 .31-32 draws atlcmion to the fact that C.ntiles responded favourably to God beeause of the prodamarion o f Jonah and Jesus. Ae<:ording t o jon. 3.10, God saw how the Ninevites ha.d 'turned rrorn their wicked ways', so
Til.._,
S~
t29. for 0. / - . ,.. F.
~&;~ina
N'lf)(:'Vc:h wu f,lse.
130. Repuu.a.na vocabu!•ry (~ncrii'Olw. urTG\1010) oc:a&r..ll onlylo Q 3.8j 10.13, and 1l.Jl (the lartc:r cwo ~Ins r.h.n Getlt•art would have re,;pooded tO}etut' prod.a.mation
appropri.attly, that is. by ftpenti:fl&•· 131. D. Harr (tnJU.). •The Uva of the- Prophctt', OTP. pp. l.l79-t9; Greek tat &om C.C. r....,., n.. ,_, of 11>< ""'p/H<J: Grtd Tal .-1 T...,.t.rt;o. (S!l.MS. 1; Pbibddpt.;s, Soci«r of Biblical U1
132. KJowa>boo1, - - · p. 13J. 133. G. Sduottt, ·n., Zdcbeo c1cs jona", ZN'II! " (1,11, pp. llJ-U. Sduottt dUrlb Q rri
148
Post-Mortem Vindiaztion of jeSJ4• in the Sayings Gospel Q
he 'repenced' from the catastrophe Jonah announced. Jonah does not react happily to this change of hean on God's part, however Uonah 4; Liv. Proph. 10.2-3; de fona 157-96). Neverthele,., the central message of the book of Jon;th, and a theme refiected in early exegesis and rcwcitings of the story, is that God's mercy extends to both jew and non·Jew. The same message is also present in Q. Concerning the centurion, jesus says, 'I tell you. not even in lHael have I found such faith' (Q 7.9). Q 10.13· 14 raises Tyee and Sidon as a positive (though hypothetical) example of how Gentiles would hav< repented had they witnessed the 'wonders performtd' in the Galilaean towns. Q 13.28-29 fores<es the inclusion of Gentiles and the exclusion of jews from the kingdom. 13• The theme of the positive response of Gentiles in Q seems intended tO inspire the rtpentance of Jewish hearers of Q's message, hecaustthe textS which introduce this theme consistently do $0 by way of contrast with rhe non ~ response. of the j ewish he-arers. Along similar Unes, •early jewish exegesis ... inter-preted Nineveh's repentance as an Unheilszeichen for Israel~ . 13'
3. Rescue from Death? l.n his study of the Sign of Jonah saying, Simon Chow argues thar 'there are reasons to assume that the s ign of Jonah in Q refers to jes-us' death and res-urrection, which is taken as a confirmation of his messiahship and a judgment on his opponents•.1J' The •reasons' Chow gives are Jewish tradi· tions tbat focused on Jonah's <scape from the 'fish' as divine rescue from Sheol (Jon. 2.2; Tg. Neo{. Deut. 30.12· 13; tk fo114 71, 99), or even as a sign of regeneration (de jona .95), accordjng to which Jonah's rescue from death prefigures the spiritual regeneration o f the Ninevires (de Jona '184}.u 7 Jonah was also widely identified, in Jatcr jewish sources., with the widow-'s son raised by Elijah (1 Kgs 17.17·24).'" It is impo.<Sible to know how widely such traditions about Jonah were disseminated. howcvr;r, ;~nd whether they were; known tO the tradents of Q 11.29·30. Despite: these traditions. Chow aJso admits rhat 'the resurrectjon of Jesus is nor found in the proclamarion of Q. The Son of man and the resurrection of jesus arc never connected.•u' Jonah would ha~e bee-n widely considered to have been rc:Scued from death (at Jcast once, and possibly twice). In addition. if Q understood Jesus'
134. For the vitw that rht- 'many' who come from East and Wtsr are diupo~ Jew*' 3C!t: H
c.,.,
Significance of Assumption in Q 13.34·35
149
post· mortem vindication in terms of assumption, this also may be helpful for understanding Q 11.29·30, e.specially given traditions that de$Cribejonah's rescue as an a.~sumption. Howc.,·er, it would be wise nm to press this point too far and sugge.sr~ as Zeller did, that ·Son of man' here refers to jesu~ who was remo ..·ed b)' assumption and who wHI return as judge. Furthermore, seeing rescue from death as a singular tert.i um comparationis founders on the fact that the Ninevites were not witnesses to Jonah's rescue from the fish, so that it is unclt'.tt how jc ;ah's rescue from death would be a sign Jo the Ninevites IQ 11.30). 1. . Almough the Q communiry may have understood
Jesus as haqing been rescued from death, and air hough the rcfc:rencc to Jonah in Q 11.29-30 may have evoked images o f the prophet's experience with the fish., the wording of the saying itself excludes exclude$ this interpretation. Implications.
The te$U}rs of the investigations in this chapter rnay now be s ummariz.ed briefly. First_, and most significant, Q contains two parables about an absent and returning master (Q 12.42-46; 19 passim), both comextually proximate with materia l about a suddenly rerurning Son of man (12.39·40; 17.2337}. This is consistent with the absence or invisibiliry normally associated to assumption in Hellenistic literature, and a lso of the eschatological role usually associated wirh assumption in Jewish writings. The final shape of this material probably results from the same redactional effort which composed the Jerusalem Lament {13.34-35). This provides some circumstantiaJ e\'idence in support of the m01in thesis. Second, Q consjders jesus the (non-earthly) Son of man as the paradigm or locus of community hopts of heavenly or eschatolvgical vindication muth the same way as some post-biblical jewish writings connected community hopes w exalted figures. The hope of corporate vind ication and exaltation, which in Q is based upon allegiance ro jesus the Son of man (Q 12.8·9; 22.28, 30; 6.22·23), would not make sense apan from some kind of strategy in Q for undersrandingJesus' own vindication and exaltarjon. The Wisdom of Solomon and the Similitudes of Enoch connect the representative futlction of the 'righteous one• and 'that Son o£ man' with assumption (variously understood), hut that might not be in view in Q~ ahhough - in the absenct of dear evidena- of a re:surrection..-exaJrarion schema - it could bt pos-ited tentatively tflat an assumption-exaltation schema was how the trndents of Q thought Jesus the earthly Son of man became the heavenly Son of man (as in Q 12.8-9). Finally, though the comparison between Jonah and the Son of man in Q 11.29-30 might have evoked ideas about reseue from death, Zeller'$ view that the s.aying has in view the as$umption and c$Chatologkal function of
140. K\oppcnbotg, Formdlion, pp. 131-32; Tuckett, Q ~~nd t~ fll'#
ISO
Post-Mortem Vindication of]e>us in the Sayings Gospel Q
both Jonah and jesus the Son of man dCM:s nor have strong warranc in the text, especially given the emphasis on rhe announcement (not the exec.ution) of judgment by Jonah and J .. U$ in Q.
Chapter 6
T HE AsSUMPTION OF jesus IN
Q AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Ex-altation Without R.e.su"ection? 'Resurrection' is che usual New Testament caregory for undersrandlng Jesus' post--monem vindication, but some NT materials refer ro jesus' death and exaltation without explicitly mentioning the resurrection. Not always is it appropriate to conclude that 'resurrection' (or. conversely, $Orne other cat-egory, .suth as 'assumption') is presumed but not stated. For instance, rhe pre· Pauline hymn rhar appears in Phil. 2.6·11 moves direcd y from death ro exaltation:
ETotnlvc.:.osv i auTOv ytubpcvos V~ICOOS' lllxpt eau6Tou, eauOTO\J se oTaupoU.
OtO Kal 0 OtOs miTOv \nnpUI.JK.oo&Y •..
... he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto dearh, the death o f the cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him .... (vv. 8·9) For Paul the resurrection is the means of Christ's exalrarion (Rom. 8.34), but some have presumed a similar view for the original context of the hymn. Ernst Lohmc:ye~. for inst;;~nce, saw here a primitive, non-Pauline way of interpreting rhe 'facr' of the resurrection. 1 On the other hand. Georgi noticed that resurrection language is lacking and posited assumption as the mode of exaltation implied in the pre~ Pauline: hymn - even proposing that the idea of assumprion was not just a •supplement' to the idea of resurrection, but was the 'oldest christologkal uadition'.2 Yet, as Lohfink pointed out, rhere is no textual clue tO support the view that 'assumption'lies behind the 'exaltation· language of th< hymn.' Although it is cltM how Paul would ha•t read the hymn., in its original context it may have taken resurrection, assumption, or 1. E, Lobmeyd', K)'rios je.Jti.S: £;tw UtUnsudnmg ~ Pb;l. 2~5 ·11 (Darmstadt: Wi-altUch< Bucbge>
Georgi, 'VotpaulinillCht Hymnus'~ p. 292 (author's translation]; Georsi thousftt
Wisdom 2....$ waa the inspinn:ion for che hymn. 3. Lobfink. Hi..,.../falm, pp. 85 o. 12, 97 n. 4<>.
152
Post-Mortem Vindication ofJesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
some ocher category as the basis for Jesus' exaltation, or it may simply have a-ssumed t hat Jesus• obedienc death was the basis of h.i$ exaltation by God. In any case, rhere is no real warrant for positing cirhe·r assumption or resur~ recdon as the mode of vindication lurking in the-subtext of the hymn. Similarly, r~surrec.tion language is not found in tbe letter tO the Hebrews, where at rimes t he author moves right from Jesus' death co his exaltation (Heb. LJ; 2.9). The final doxology contains an inreresring formulation:
0 &uayayilv EK wKpc:lv tbv rrotJ.tiva Tc:lv rr~O:Tc.JV T0v ~tyov iv oi..,o.Tt 6ta&~Kf\S
aiwvlou, tb\1 KVptov ~\.tc:Ov' l11aoUv ...
the one who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep in the blood of the eternal eovenanr, our l ord Jesus---· (Heb. 13.20)
The verb OvO:yw suggests assumption, buc 1nore likely allude-s to Isa. 63.1_1 .4 Harold Attridge thinks sta ndard resurrection language (iyilpw, Ovlonu.u) is being delibetattly a¥oided here, given that Hebrews tends towards. 'langu.age of cxa ltottion not resurrection for the act whereby jesus' sacrifice is consummated and he himself ... perfecre.d"''.s Also worth noting is 1 Tim. 3.16, long recognized as an early hymn. Although none of its six line-s refcr.s to resurrection explicitly, assumption language doe$ occur:
·os £<j>avrpc.\&q iv oap•i, iOII(atOO&n iv rrvitl~aTl,
.:>¢e~
ayyil-o,, ,
iKT}pti}(9f') 6v l8VfOIV, i--TT1CITEU8J) iv K6olJ-~, O.vrM~&r!
iv OOI;n.
Who was revealed in flesh, vindicated in spirit, a ppeared to angels, proclaimed among the Gt-ntiles, believed in the world, mken up in glory. This. hymnic piec-e has generated a great de~ ) of sc::holarly discussion, foc::uscd particularly on irs struccure and the meaning a nd inter-relatedtltSSof lhe six lines.' Many scholars see a reference ro the tes-urrection lurking in
4. H.W. Attridge, The Epistle to tht! Hcbr4:ws: A. Comttlt'tt.l4ry on tlu £p;stk UJ th' Hebrnus (Hermenci2; PhjJaddph.ia: Forness. l 989), p. 406. 5. Atttidse. Htlwn.vs. p. 406, polnrlng to similar bf\S~&e in Heb. 2.\0. 6. See W.O. MOI.lllCC. Past()Tal Epi#tu (WBC, 46; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000), pp. 212- 18,224-32.
11,. Assumption of Jesus in Q and Early Christianity
153
icSIKGI~fnl ev nvtU~o-"Tt, along Hnes similar t(,) Rom. 1.4.7Although c.l¢.8tl is an important tt.rm in the resurrection appearance traditions (1 Cor. 15.5-8;
Lk.. 24.34),
most hesitate co see a reference to the rcsurrecdon of jesu$ in
the third line, because of ayyi~OI S.' Finally, many think aut~!\~~
iu oo~o
refers to the (Lukan} ascension, but Lobfink, understanding I. 2 in terms of Christ's •t.xaltation•, thinks l. 6 refers to the same •as an event of the heavenly world' and thus out of the sight of the disciples' II so, I Tim. 3 .16 uses assumption language, but not res u_rrec::rion language, to express a belief in jesus' exaltation. However, this is not the place co solve exegetical problems assoc:iatcd with this text and with ochers which suggest that early Christhms could ralk about jesus' exaltation without explicitly engaging the category of 'resurrection', and sometimes ln such a way as ro sugg~t- t() some scholars ac least - that 'assumption' was in tbe backg.round.J 0 Working a long such lines, some earlier scholars tried to show that 'assumpcion' as a mode o f expressing or visualizing Je.s us' posr~mortem vindication was contemporary with, or even {c;hronologically a nd theologically) prior co, 'resurrtction•. Elias Bickermann, for instance, in ·1 924 argued th~t Mk J6.1-8 ha.s its bolSis in an early tradition about jesus• assumption from the grave, which originated in the 'Urgemeinde' and which was q uiddy suppJant~d by the dominant rcsucrection theology of the Hclltnis-tlc Chr istians.U The dominanc feature of Mk 16.1-8 is the absence of jesus 1 body, rather than an appearance of the risen Jesus. For Mark and the other evangelis-ts, the empty tomb signified resurrection~ but because Mark's story -whatever its origin or pre-history - has formal similarities with Hellenistic .assumption narratives, it deserves c.ardul considcrar.ion as a possible parallel to the belief in Jesus' ;~ssumption in Q as argued here.
7. Mounce, Pastoral f:pistlt'S, pp. 217-28. 8. Mounoe thinks l. 3 is in parallel with L 6 (opting for a fWC)"$tanr• structure) and thus rt2cb the 'ascension' into~ Oyyi>.o1~ (PaSIMal Epist/L-$, p. 229); l.T. johnson, 1'be Mrst and StroM Leut-rs to Timotlry: A Ne:w TrRnSiction witb I:ntroductio" ~trW Com~mary (AB, 35A; N~w York: Doubleday, 2001}, pp. 233-34, ulce$ iryyi>.o1s a$ ce(etting ro tbe apostles (;u in 1 Cor. 15.5-8). 9. Lobfink, Himlf'Ull{ahrt. p . 89 (author•, cnnsbrioo~ so tlt;c> Zwi.e-p, As~iQn, p. 142. 10. A.lso to be nored is Act$ 7..SS-S6 !Stephen's vision of the Son of man), which movtll djuxdy &om a deutcronomisdc interpretation ofJesus' death to his •standing~ as Son of man at the right haod of God. J. jertmia& thought ActS 7•.56, al~>ng with U.. 1:2.69, pre&Upposes 'tlut rM m:tniftsu.rion of~ glory o( d'e Son o( man con$i$t$ in b.is a.ssump(ion to Cod (cf. Etb. Enocb 11 )': Jertmias, New Tutatmnt Tluology {trans. J. bowden; NTl.; London: SCM, 1971 ), p. 273. 1ht ttadirion.al origin of the vision is uncertain, .and within the: chriscological framework. of luke-Acts the vision presuppo&CS tc:su.ct«t.ion and aKmSio11o. F.or littrarure ud discussion, $tt C. Focaot. •J)u fi.ls de !'Homme assis (Lc 22,69) au Fils ck I'Homme debout tAc 7,56): Enkux theolosique d littCraire d'1.1n chan:gan.tnt ~antique•, inj. Vetbeyd('o (ed.•, Tbe Un;ry ofWt· Ads (B£'0.., 1_.2; Lnn-cn: Lcuw:n Uoiv('tsity Pt('$$ aod P..,• .., 1999), pp. 563-76. 11. 8icbnnann, 'Das l«rc Grab'. pp. 290, 29'2; see also Hauk, 'l!.ntrUckoog uod eteba.tolot,:tische Funktion', p. 113.
!54
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
In !927 Georg Bertram argued that a belief in jesus' immedia<e ascension from
Thjs is an importam point, directly applicable to Q, which •jumps immedi· arc:ly to jesus• re:rurn as the Son of mao'. 16 But Evans also grasped the difficulcies inherent in attempdng to construct a developmental model with 'exaltation• or 'assumption• and 'resurrection' as points on the same trajectory, as Bickermann~ Bercram, and Georgi did DOL 11 A more cautious approach is to argue tbat, in certain circles, a-ssumption cou1d have seemed more theologically appropriate than resurrec.cion, whether or not knowledge o f resurrection traditions can be determined for such groups. But it will be illustrative to investigate, albeit briefly, other texts that could support the view that other circles besides the one represeme.d by Q could conceptualize jesus• post-mortem vindication along the lines of assumption. These texts include {1) writings which seem ro describe an assumption of Jesus from the cross, (2) Mark's empty tomb story (Mk 16.1-8). l2.
C. Bertram, 'Die Himmdfahn jesu 'f'Om Kreu.z an und der Gbul>e e.n teioe
A u fer.teb ung~, in JU... Schmidt (ed.), Pwg~IH {Mr Adolf~"" vun 60. iTYb;ng.., Molu Si
13.
14. LS. 16.
17.
l..ohme7ez. Kyrio1}n.u, p. •s n. 2. Lindan, 'Apo
Enns., Rt~ution tmd tht Nt~J~ Ttstdml"NI. pp. 137- 38. Kk>ppcnbotg, f=watmg Q, p. 378. See ~o Georgi. •vorpa.ulinitc:he Hymnus', p. 2.92..
GebNrtsug
The Assumption of jesus in Q and Early Christianity
155
An Assumption ofJesus fr()m the Cross? At least four extr.acanonical tt:xt$ describe an assumption or a &sappearancc: of jesus from the cross. Though most of them are of~ much later date than Q, they must be examined here because they use assumption language for a crucified, though not yet dead, Jesus. Possibly, such later Jegcndary developments in traditions about the crucifixion would om have occuNed had there not already ~n in existence the view that tbe post-mortem jesus had experienced assumption rather than resurrection. Two of ch~ textS, Gos. Pet. 5.19 and an insertion after Mk 16.4 in the Old Latin, appear to describe an assumption of Jesus &om the cross. Tbe other rwo, Acts of john 97-102 and Ques. Barth. 1.6-7,describc heavenly journeys, perhaps bodily, from the cross and back again. Gos. Pet. 5.19, fir>t of all, uses standard assumption
language (the aorist passive O:urA1)¢i&r}) whert~ one would expect ~ reference to the death of Jesus:
And the Lord cried out saying: My power, {my] power, you have abandoned me; and having said [this} he was taken up. a This difficult passage has been much discussed in scholarly literature.'' Our interest is in the meaning of Ctvr.Xt)4>8n. Docs the unusual cry of dereliction indicate a docetic or gnostic view according to which the impassible 4Christ1 or 'Word' lc;aves the human Jesus at the moment of death? Or d~s it refer to an ascenr of the souJ. or simply to jesus' death? Can it refer to an assumption from the cross? D.W. Palmer suggested that it •may be taken to denote assumption rather than death', although he $t:emed to confuse 'assumption' with the naive view of ' the person depaning from his body at death' .10 Palmer's main source~ the citation &om the A~umptio MO$is preserved by Clement (Strom. 6.132.2), refers co soul ascent, nm assumption. The rwo categories did use similar language, bur they differ in that with assumption per se the body disappears. Gos. Pet. 5.19 cannot refer to a bodily assumption of jesus, because the text goes on to desc.r1be. in great detail the removal of the body from the ~ross a.od 18. Crtck tt-Xt from .M.G. Mara (1!<1. and tt:tns.), lwngls. tU Pim-e: Introduction, texu aitiqw. triUluakm. romnwJ.kl.ire a i'Nhx (SC. 201; Puis: Cerf, 19?3). Harna<:l emrocled the text to inc)ude the StlOOnd JK1U (not in ~ manUJCtipt): Mara. l.v~ngile de Pme, p. -t8 n. 19. 19. See Mara, &.tngile de Pi-erre, pp. 132-40; J.W. McCant, 'The_Gospel of Pet«: De><;ecis:m R«onaidercd', NTS .lO ( 1984), pp. 258-73 (262-67); P.M. Head, 'On the Chr;.tology ofthd;ospd ofP
Post-Mortem Vindicati071 of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
!56
it$ burial 16.21 ·2~). It seems best to understand avrJ.l)~ here as referring
to soul ascent. Although cXV«AcqJj)cl:VCt> was somedmcs used c:uphemisticall)· for 'dying>,l 1 it was also commonly used for soul ascenc.u Whatever the relationship between the Gospel of Ptler and the canonical gospels,2J other
descriptions of the death of Jesus also suggest a departure of jesus• souVspirit from che body.1" Gos. Pet. 5.19 morrovtr does not suggeit the depanurc from Jesus o f a dlsti nct spiritual cndcy (whether the 'Christ' or che 'Word').
as apparently certain of Irenacus• opponents believed (see, for example, Haer. 3.16.6; 3.17.4)." In the Acts of john, the apostle John fl«s from the crucifixion and rakes refuge o n the Mount of Olives, where Jesus suddenly appears to him -though his 'departure' from the cr06s is not described- and gives him a s pecial revelat ion while darkness covered the land (Acu of John 97- 102). Jesus says, 'J ohn, to the multitude down below in JerusaJem J am being crucified ... but to you I am speakin~ and pay auention to what I say• (Acts of john 97). The end of the vision uses assumption language: When h< had spOken to me these things and Otbcrs which I know not bow ro say :ts he would h;m: me, he was u lcen up, without ~ny of lhe n'ultirude luving seen him (s- o:UtOv &to:oa).lfvou lilv OxM..lv). And wOOl I went down I laughed t hem all to M"Otn . . .. lt\cts of John 102)l 6
The removal of jesus at the conclusion of the encounter ta kes him back to
rhe cross, a nd the crowd's
igno~ nce
of Jesus' absence (whether or not the
text supposes he was absenr from the c-ross in body) is arrributcd to their spiritual blindncss.21 The Questions of Bartholomew, dated on theological grounds to around the fifth cencury,a describes unambiguously a disappearance of the body of jesus from t he cross. After the resurrection, Sanholomew says to jesus, 'Lord, wben you went fO be ban&cd on tbe (;fOSS, ( fol1owcd you afar off and saw you hung upon the ctQ!l'l, and the anRel$ coming down (rom have~:"~ .:and we)f$hipping you.
21.
So ROAG. See alw the 'later evidence' cited by Head. •Qlnstology", pp. 2 1<4 and
223 n • ..1.
Stt Lob6al<., Him,.,.l(ahrt, pp. 61-69. 23. For a S\II'VCY of recent opini()C). and a$$C$Sttlt:ttts o( tbe evidenr;e, sec A. Kitk, ' Examining Priorities: Another Look at tfM. Gospel of Pc:ter'-s k c:larionship ro W New Tesumeot <><>•pels', NTS 40 { 19~), pp. 512· 95. 2... Mk 1.S.37; Lk. 23.<46; and especially Mt. 2.7.50 and Jn 19.30 (~v ,.0 lfVWSJo and nap(&.>.ttv TO tmV\Ja, respectivt-JyJ. 25. Xe Mc.:Ca.o.r.. 'Do«-t.isrn', pp. 262,.,65; cf. Mara, .E.wngik de Pierre, pp. 139-40. 26. l'rans.. EUiott, A.pocrypNJ Net~~ Tt'st4mhll, p-p. 32~21; Creek ttxt from E. Junod and J.-D. JU.esdi (eds. and ttafl$.). Act.s lohdnnis: T~~ alii - Commt:f'tt#riv; - lttd.ius lCChr. St'ri.es Apoccyphorum, 2; 2 vols..; Tumhout: Brtpols. 1983), p. 1.215. 27. So Junod and Kaesdi~ Ada lohann.i.s, p.. 2.676'. 28. S« J.-0. Kaesdi and P. Chuix, L'tvangik de Lnhilnny d'apri..s tkux i aits apocryphu (Turnb<>u" Btepol•, 19931, p. , • •
22.
The Assumption of jtsUs in Q and F..arly Christianity
157
And when thereeamt darkncu, I looked and I sa;w tb.lt you vanished away from the cross (c160v Of O:+avq yty¢lo'OTQ: a.o TOU OTaupoU),
jesus answers that he left r.he cross in order to bring Adam and the patti~rchs up from Hades (1.8-9). Alter this otherworldly journey, j esus rerurns to the cross, still under cover of darkness (1.20). Apparently all these t hings were vi$ible only to Bartholomew. As in t he Acts o( john, j esus makes a temporary depanure, perceprible only to a chosen disciple, from the: Crt)$s, under cover of dMkness. 30 Alchough Quu . Barth. 1.7 does not describe an assumption, it prdenrs a combination of motifs - a bodily disappearar)Ct of jesus from the cross, during the t ime of universal darkness, accompanied by an angelic escort similar ro that found in another sou ret, 41n interpolation a her Mk 16.3 in the
O ld Latin Codex Bobbiensis (k). Jn D. W. Palmer's opinion., the interpolation •seerns to be an acxount of the assumption of jesus from the cross, which was transposed to irs present position at rhe time- o f the Latin translation of Mark, in order tO give the impression of a visible. resurrection from the tomb'.J t Palmer reproduced the text of Bobbiensis opposite the Greek text o f Mk 16.2-4 as shown in Table 6. 1 below.» Table 6.1: Mk 16.2-4 in Codex 1\obbiensis and in Creek Mk 16.~. C
1 ct •u~erue.~ prima tabbflfi m..ue,
29. Trans. Elliott, Apocryphal Ntw Tmammt, p. 655; Greek ttlt'l from A. WiJmsrt Uld f.:. T~t, 'FragmentS Grec$ ec l.atins de l'tvansile de: Bartbekmy', RIJ 10 (1913), pp. 161-90, 321-08 1183). JO. On poi.nts of(()nW;t bct'¥i·ceo the Question~ o(BftTfholon~ and the: Amg. II. M"'""""""K•Iium (Berlin: cl<: Cruyu~ J 9.0). .U. Pal~t emendtd the text to •surg-tbant' h~ ('Matk 16.4', pp. 114-15).
!58
Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Palmtr suggest~d several reasons why t he interpolation was not originally composed for its present context. Flrst, rhe rime deS<;ription ('ad horam tertium'} ts not consistent with a dawn visit tO t he romb. The omission, unique to Bobbiensis in the Old latin,3~ of something corresponding to O:uani ).a\ITO) TOO tiJuoU (Mk 16.2} is unusual, and given the time discrepancy, Palmer said that 'it is hard to believe that the omiss-ion is accidental'.35 Second, the rde.rence to uni\•ersal darkness fits not the empty tomb but the crucifixion context (sec Mk 15.33), so •ad rertiam horam' originally referred to the end of the darkness, and the interpolation's original context was the crucifixjon.u Palrncr also decided that the original fragmen t extended from 4 ad horam tertiam' to 4 lux facta est', with the rat of the interpolation being editorial adjustments to make the fragment ht.37 These adjustments explain wby rhe interpolation does not mention the cross. What remains., ac(:Ording tO Palmer, is a fragmentary account of eventS at the crucifixion which bas parallels borh whh other Christian passion accounrsn and, impOrtantly, with assumption narratives such as the one in 2 En. (A) 67.1-3, where be discerned the same formal pattern: ( I) ooming of darkness; (2) descent of angels; {3) ascent; (4) return of light. Lohfink observed that darkness or clouds (which obscured t he actual assumprjon from view) are sometimes found in Gra~~Roman and Jewish assuroption narratives ..$!1 As seen above, angelic escort is nor a common modf in assumption narratives. This motif might have been incorporated into 2 Enoch (A/ 67 because of the influence of soul ascent narratives (such as T. Abr. (A) 20.10-12; T. Job 52), or because Enoch journeyed with angelic guides in earlier Enoc:h.ic writings.44 Palmer's observation-s on the nature, ex-tent, and original context of the interpolation seem weU·founded. The main difficulties with the view that the interpolation refers to an assumption of jesus from the cross are (1) the vagueness of the expression asc.endenmt eum eo,0 given rh•u rhe usual depiction of Jesus• death is as a $Oul ascent, and (2) the fa'-t that angelic escons are more common in such scenarios than in descriptions of bodily assumptions. So, his interpretation of the fragment as refcrrlng to an 4assump-tion' from the cross is open to question. If it was originally a
Palmer, ' Mllric 16.4•, pp. 117-18 mentiont: an,gelie ~!$COM ( Qu~. Banb. 1.6); oa:urrios during the three: houn (If datknea.s t-Gos.. l'u. .S.l.S-6.2 1); return o f light (Go.s. Pet. 6.21-; Did. Apost. S.H). 39. l.ol>fink, Hl""""l{.mt, pp. 44-45, 73, 38.
tnnt1
..0. 1 £,_ 81.5·6 implies tb.tt tbc: '$CYen holy ones• who deposit Eoocb badt at his bouse will return for b.is final assumption after hts ye:tr o( i.nsuuerion co hd h.mily. 41-. ~c i$ n01 3ltl(ln& the u.u.~ l ver~ for assumption, a-cc;ording to Lohfink {Hmo..,.l{.mt, pp. 41--421.
The AJSumption of jesus in Q and Early Christitlnity
!59
fragment from an account o f the crucifixion, the Bobbiensis interpolation probably describes not a bodily assumption but the ascent of jesus' souJ, rwo categodes which Palmer seemed to confuse in his discussion of Gos. Pet. 5.19."
Mark's 'Empty Tomb' Narrative (Mk 16.1-8)
Mk 16.1 ·8 narrates the d iscovery of t he absence of jesus' body from the tomb, but describes no a ppearances of the risen jesus. ln several ways this story is formally similar to ~ssurnption narratives. Most -significant is the absence of the body: as seen ln Chapter 3 above,, it often took no more than disappearance for the condusion to be reached that an assumption had taken place . .Besides, a missing corpse suggests not resunection but a.$$umprion (so Chariton, Chaer. 3.3). In addition, the absence o f jesus' body is emphasized typically by a fruitless search (lnoouo~nnln ... oU<EOTto cl.6•, v. 6), and the missing body is verified by a corroborating witness~ the 'young man'. Kal iioE.MtoUoa11is TO IJVflpilov ilOov \11ia\.IIOKovJCa&r\~&vov &v Tols &~to'is ncp•ll•ll'-1t~iooo trTOM\V A!v
o
And whe-n they entered the-tomb, they saw a young man scared on the right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said
to them, ' Do not be alarmed: you seck jesus the Nazarene, who was crucified; he has been raised, he is not here; look, there is the place where they laid him.' (Mk 16.5·6) His testimony confirms (and inrerprers) the disappea rance, and suc.h rcsti· monies also figure prominently in Hellenistic assumption narratives, as Lohfink observed." T he V
160
Post-Mortem Vindication of]WAS in the Sayings Gospel Q
proble-matic to a 'disappearance' story, however; since such epiphanjes were meant tO confirm t hat an assumption bad taken plaoe;45 The announcement esp«.ially to Pe
Mark. Since in Bickermann's view early Christian tradition could sometimes substitute the idea of exaltation - the end result of assumption - for the idea of resurrection. Mark was not troubled by using this early usumption account. 5° Bickcrmann s uggested that the assumption story used by Mark originated in the 'original circle• ('Urgemdnde-'}, a group which be]jeved that jesus was exalted immediately after his dcath.' 1 ln Bickermann's view, this understanding of jesus' fate was qukkly overshadowed by resurrec1ion
theology, which was more: at home in the Hellenistic groups which knew of the dying and rising figures of the mystery religions.n 1S.
.Lohfink, Him~Ifohrt, pp. 4~; Sickermann, 'Oas lcere C rab', pp. 29D-9 1;
.so ~ lso R. PeiCh, Das Af.arlttd~Vr:tng
48.
'DasletK Grab', p. 190. BidetmaM thought this c:onsisteot wirh Mark's metbod
of violmtly i.n~ning 'Paleninian• tradition into t~ fr:unework of his QWn Hell.t:niftie the<>IQSY. A$ evKient:e o( M.atk't ad<tputtoo of the 'UrberKht', Bickermann noted: U t the Pfomi~~e of a n appeuat'W< in GaiHee, ~ina: in 8ic,kcrmann's •icw assumption and cpiphanr do oot go togerber (d . Loh.6nlc., Himmelf(lhrt, pp. 45-46); a.o.d (2) tht cornroand tO the WOrtk"U, onJr a ~COM«Cjng link' bc:-fwttn fhe U!lwnption :tC
'M.k 16-,1 ~8 al5 Epilog des M;ar'k\JSC'vangdium5', i.n C. Fcxaru {ed.), The SynoptU: CosjHls; Source Critj.cism lind tin New Litnary Criticism (BJ:.'"l'l, 110; Lcuvm: Lcuvcn UniYtniry
The Assumption of jesus in Q and Early Christianity
161
Neill Hamilto11 likewise found the empty tomb story at odds with resur• rection theo)ogy_.u Hamilton argued rhac the empty tomb narrative was created by Mark primarily in reaction ro traditions of the appc:a(ances of the risen jesus.s4 He called the empty tomb story 'an anriresuNecrion story', because 'it avoids displaying the resurrected Jesus·,s.s although he did not explain the presence of 1\yip&q in Mk 16.5. Mark composed the empty tomb narrative to focus attention away from the resurrection appearanc-es. ~nd onto the absence of Jesus, i.n order to highlight the Parousia. J\c.<:ording to Hamilton, Mark's identiJi<arion of john and Elijah (Mk 9.13l means Elijah hu a second career in john. Elijah's assumption allows the mmsition between the: two ca.reers.s' By analogy, HamiJron argued that Matk creates rwo careers for Jesus the Son of man: the 6nt is the ministry of jesus (see Mk 2. 10; 2.28; 9.12l, and the second an earthly rule beginning after the Parousia.s' Thus-, 'Mark's special contribution to the esch.atological crisis aher 70 is his conviction that the resurrected Lord s hould be replaced by a translated and returning Son of man•, ~nd this explains w hy Mark treated the-empty comb story.51 More recently, Adela Yarbro Collins has argued that Mark wrote 16.1-8 in order co narrace the resurrection as a disappearance-srory.59 For Collins~
Pres~
and Pteten, 1993 •• pp. 20:9-38 i218-19); G. LUdemann, 'OJ~ R.~SJmution of]rsus: Hismry. lf.xpemna. Theolon (London: SC.\4, 1994), pp. 119-21; Uro, 'jeesus-liike ja yJ&nousemus:', pp. 101-02. Interestingly, Hau.fe made no refcrenc:t to Biclcerm.ann. evm though be was anxious to prove tht: pre5mce of a.s'"umpeion theology particuJarly lo Marie. ('£ntrUcl:utl8 uod $h~tologi»ehe Funktton•, pp. 112- 13). S3. N.Q. Hamilton, •"Rcslllft'Ction Tradition and t he Composition of Mack', JBL 84 (J96SJ, pp. 415-21• .54. Hamilton, 'Resucc«tion Traditicm', p. 41?. In Hamihon'$ opinion, ~hat 'the wome:n did nor til) anyone shows that Mark is- a.polog:izing for :a story whkh no one knew until h~ crea~ed a nd published it to the chu.rch. The reft~:en ce tt> Peter in 16.7 $hows t.h.u he is aware of tb~t ttJ:dition o( 1 Cor 15. 3-S ud that be ftt~ he ought to mAke Peter the: 6cst witness of jesus' rcsuccectioo' (p. 417) . .SS. Hami.lron, 'Re$urr«1ion Tradition•, p. 420; set: similacty Cr05.ian, 'Empty Tomb', p. 152. 56. Hamilton, 'Re$urrection Tradition•, p. 420. 57. Hamilton thought that 'Madc.'s inrt:rm in work:iog out eschatology on earth is $0 strong that be t"Vtn hM ' tb~ty :~.bout fhe ~raphy of ful6Umenr': Gslikc is given :~..s the location of the Son of m:an's tteood carce.c becauK of the destruction of Jausakm, and Hamilton went $0 far as to s.ay that Marie: 'created tht Galilean ministry to support his eoncl~ion', ;appa«qdy not aware of Q'!l intertSt in G.t.liltt as riw:: pla:ot of jesus' ministry (Hamilton, 'Rc:sw:cect:ioo Tradition•, p. 4l l ), SB. Hamilton, 'Resun«tion TNidlrion', p. <42.0. For a similer view, .see B.L. ~bd:., A Myth of Jnnocena: Mm-.l dnJ cJm•stit.Jtf Ofitim (Philadelphia: fortress, 1988), p. 308: ' Were: a oosmic: Pft:Senu to be inferred {fr(lol the: resurrection ~ppearanccsJ, Lhc: Apocalrptic coocems fot vindications, judgments, and the evmrual m.tnifntation of 1M kingdom of God in hwnan social history would be threatened.• S9. Collins. 8e1ittni"8 of cbt Gospd, pp. t 19-48; see :a~so Collins,. 'Apotheosis and Resurrection'.
162
Post·Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
~yip9Jl is not a problem~ because in Mark's understanding, Jesus was resur-
rected; Matk makes use of the narrative patter.' of assumption because it was •a culturo:IJy defined way for an author living in the first century to narratethe resurrection of jesus'.~ Given Mark's understanding of resurrection anthropology, jesus) resurrection is physical, so the body gone from the tomb; but bee~use Mark doe$ not narrate an appearance, Collins suggests that 'the alternative is that Uesusj ascended to heaven immediatelyt." The affirmation that an individual, Jesus, had been raised from the dead "seemed quite similar co the claim ... that Enoch had been taken up into heaven and tO the claims made ... regaz:ding the translation or apotheosis of heroes, rulers, and emperors'.'! As wic.h Hamilton, the effec.t, or perhaps the purpos~ of assumption in Mk 16.1-8 is •co place the acc~nt on the absence of Jesu&', an accent related to the apocalyptic expectation of Mark.•3 To sum up brieRy, Bickerrnann perceived a formal distinction bctw~n assumption narratives and resurrection narratives, whi-ch led him to think that Mark was reworking an older t:.n~dition about the assumption o£ jesu,S) Hamilmn thought Mark's composition of the empty wmb story as an ;usumption narrative: was pOlemically motivated, and that Mark intended to correct a mistaken emphasis on the resurrection appcaran~s; and Collins thinks that Mark was simpJy describing jesus· resurrection and immediate exaltation as an assumption, given t hat tbis was a convenrional way of telling such ;~s nory. These t hree: correctly distinguish between resurrection and assumption, for although both categories are used to account for tbc vindication of Jesus, they envision different 'phenomemt•.f" Resurrection has more to do with the reversal of death, and assumption~ rypically at least, has to do with preservation in the heavenly realm for a future eschatological role. If 'resurrection' only rtversc:s death, on il$ own lt c:annot account directly for jesus' exaltation and etehacologlcal significance in the same way that assumption can.6S However, it is but a short step from the-resurrection of Jesus, understood as a sign of divine fa vour and vindication, to the kind of enthronement theology seen in the allusion to Ps. 110.1 in Rom. 8.34, for instance (see alro Rom. 1.3-4); and a connection between resurrection and eschatological function can be seen in t Thess. 60. 61. 62..
Collins, &ginnUtg of th8 Gm(MI, p. 147. Collins, &gimtingo(t~GO$pel, p. l-46. Collins,&ginningo{tlk C
6S.
See Evans, R•surr~a-iOJt, pp. 137-38~ stt aJso Hauftl 'Entriickung und t:SChatolo-
giscbe Funlction', p. 112: 'Assumption did juuiot co the uniq~ peNOn of j esi.IS and alto 6t
e1.t:ily ioto the esc.:batOiogieal fr;trnewor_k- ol hi$ procla.m•tioo, while tbc prem.~ture resurrcecioo of a sing!<: penon before the geot.tal ~rologic~l resurrection olth.e dead $itnply had no place in tht &amtwork of jtwiah esclutology' (~uth ()f's tt'n•llnion).
The Assumption of }tsus in Q and f.arly Christianity
163
1.9-10. But the fact tha t tC$urrecrion and aS5umption arc different categories explains why Luke has ustd t hem both." For Luke, the resurrection ~ver~ jesus' wrongful death (Am 2.23·24; 4 .10), and hi• ascenoion <>
66. In the opinion o( van lilborg and Counct, "tht combi.natloo of burial, diaap• pnnnce and tbt bdief in returrt"Ction is at right angfet co anucher (Ombirutt_ion wh..i(:h pla)'t an impOrtant role in clau:ical iU\tMluity: namely the obsef'l'ation of th.c: body's diaappt"atance (btlore or after death) and the be1tef in tiMlmption' {A.Pf>Mranas and Disgppc4ramu, p. 193). Van 1ilbors and Countt a\10 think 1h11 10 "k the JOUt'C't-
tbe Lukan
l8s-n•.
See tohfink, Hlmmtl(.hn. p. 272.; van TIIbotg and Counet. Appe.mnsus and Di.s.apJN#NNCef, pp. 186-87; d. Zwi~p. As«mNm, pp. 1-47~6.
67.
B.iekn-mann., ·ouleett Crab", p. 290. Ste Mk 8.31; 9.9·10; 9.3 1; 10.34: 14.28. 69. So1 lor instance~ L Seheokc, lt~(e.tlltbtutt~~ibtJ/pttf ttttd kcrel (ir4h: eine traditi<Mqudtkhtlklt. U"r".-."III'Oit Mit 16, 1-8 CSBS, J3; ~tt: Kathol.ischcs Bibdwefk.. 19&-IJ~ pp. 4l-46o W. Maraen., .MQ.,t the W.~diU~ Shldiu OJI 1he R.aWdtO'If. Hi#ory of tb. C01JHI IN••hv;llt1 Ab;n(ldon. 190~ pp. 75-41; R.H. S,.in, 'A Shon Nou 68.
on Mark XTV.21 and XVl.T, NT'S 20 (U74 •• pp. 44$-.Sl (44$); H. Pau.lten., '~ft XVI1-i'. ~<>tiT 2l C1910~ pp. ll3-7S CI<J-Sll. 70. S.. Bol...,nn, HISIOry, p. US; C<>llins. ~of lh< Gcnpt/, p. Ill. been irucr1 Msrt: """ 71. l..fid<mam, ~~.,..,...._ p. 118, 'Noct that • • che tradition. buc earlier bowtcdtc' ~ co haYC bccl'l pmctY«i in tht rl!dactioo.' Stt abo Uro, 'jcaw-bih t• ,..._......, pp. 104-0$. 72. tbn~ikoa., 1\ctwrcaion Trtdicioo.. p. 420; CcolA.n, 'f..miXY Tcmb\ p. JSl.
1""
164
Post-Mortem Vindkation of jesus
in''" Sayings Gospel Q
why has he included this reference to the appearances to Peter and the other disciples?7J It seems more likely that Mark is adapting a pre-Markan story with the kerygmatic appearance traditions io mind, and if Mark did O()( narrate any appearances because his source d id not contain any, the empry tomb srory was from the beginning a disappearance story. On this basis, it could also be: suggested that JjyipBn, 'he has been raised' (v. 6) is a Marbn addition meant to bring a disappearance srory io line with Mark~s own resurrection theology. A detailed analysis of Mk 16.1-8 is impossible hece, but mighc bear ouc chis coojecrure.14 But if it can be argued chat Mark adapts a uadirion about jesus' assumption from the graveJ then it would appear that the Q <;ommunit)• was not alone in imagining j esus' post-mortem vindication and exaltation :along suc.h lines. Such a similarity may even be the result of shared ideas or tradi· tions. This would mean that rhe claims of some scholars about the origin of a pre-Markan empty tomb story would have to be re·evaluated. For instance, LUdemann thinks that 'those who handed down these traditions "'concluded" from the message (of the kerygma] chac che crucified one had cisen that the tomb of jesus was em_pt:y. The preseor story is as it were the product of a conclusion or a postulate'.11 This is possible., except that an 'empry tomb 1 s tory does nor necessarily pre.suppose re.surrtceion faith. Obviously, for Mark and the otber evangelists the empty tomb signifies the resurrection of Jesus, but given the c()ntemporary view that the disappearance of a body signifies assumption, it is possible that an earlier group or groups could have understood a srory about jesus' empty comb differently- particularly since assumption/disappearance language was used in Q 13.35. lt may be, however, that t he- que-s tion of a pre·Markan disappearanct StOf)' is moo~ because in its present shape: - for which Mark of c.ourse is responsible- the empry comb narrative still is more like an assumption story than a resurrection story. Even Mk 16.7 is not entirely out of place here because, as already mendoned, an epiphany ofcen serves co confirm that an assumption has taken place. Two options follow: iln;t, tO sugge$1, as Collins does, chat Mark's narrative in iUJ present form presumes a resurrection but describes an assumption;7' or second, to suppo$t-, as Bickermann did, that 73. ll\t view th.at ~a& in M.ark 16.7 refers ro a Galib.un Parou11ia is Mtenabk . Sec, 6rst of all, E. Lohmerer, CaWiio und #-n~sol~m (GOtdngen: Vandcnhotdc &: Rupttthr, 1936). pp. JQ-11; $t.r alw Ma ~JU~en, Afp,Jc th• £11rmgf:list, pp. 15- 9.5; Hamilton, ' Rtsurrrcrion 'fraditKm•, pp. 4 19- 11. Cf. Stein, 'Made XIV.28 and XVl.T, pp. 446-$2. 14. For bibliosraphy, f<e Me-rklein, 'Epilog·', pp. 233-38. Tbe foUowiog argue for a pre•Mou:k<~n emprr «Jmb story: Schcnkc, Au{ntUbiJifgff}f'fkiindigung, pp. JO-SS (~p. pp. 53- 55}; R. .Pnch, (Du SchJuS .kt vorm.atk.inischen PassiOl'I$Beschi(hte tmd ~ Matk'U~geli um$: Mk 15,42-16.8', in M. Sabbe (ed.), L'l"'allgil# ulon Marc: Tradition ~~ ridtzaion (BETL. 34; l.cu\·nt: Leunn Univenity .,rcas and Peeters, 1974), pp. 36J-410; Mtrk.lein,~ 'Epilos•, pp. 226--33; LUdemann., R~~aion. pp. 111-18. Others .suggest it is Ma.rkan composition: so Cros.san, 'Empty Tomb', pp. 145-49; Collins, &gJ'n~~ing ()/ t.h. Gospel, pp. 129-38. ?S. LUdemann, lteiJirrec.tiaff, p. 121. 76. Collins, se,Uming, pp. 145--48.
The Assumption of}e.us in Q and Early Christianity
16S
for Mark the two caregorle$ were not irreconcilable because of their common emphasis on C-)Caltat.i on.17 The lauer seems more likely, but either way, it is striking r:hat Mark (or Martc•s sour:ce) and Q- rwo apparently independent sources - should consider assumption an appropriate way to think about jesus' posHnortem existence. At this point the observations of Hamilton and CoiJins, according to which an assumption-related absence of the post· mortem Jetui is oriented in Mark to the Parousia, apply tO Q as well as tO Mark. For in both instances. whether Mark chose not to relate r~surrection appearances or because the limits of his source. material prevented him ftom doing so, dte result of an a$Sumption-re)ated a-bsence is an emphasis on the future prc:sc:oce of the assumed jesus in the coming of rhe Son of rnan . This was evident not only in Q 13.34-35, but al•o in Q 12.39-40 and 12.42-46, and Q 17 and 19. Another issue has ro do with the: $0Cio-rc:ligious function of Mark,s empty tomb story when compared with the appearance traditions as pr~rved in 1 Cor. lS.S-8. This tradition, and Paul's addendum to it, had as one function at least the legitimation of early Christian authority figures, as Ulric.h Wikkens a rgued.7' Thi$ is evident from rhe way Paul becomes distracted from the main issue in the chapter - the question of the general resurrection in relation to the resurrection of Christ- co a n ongoing concern in his relationship with the Corinthians, that of his apostolic a uthority (1 Co" 1S.9-tl). This is apparently not Mark's concern: che reference (probably redactional) co the appearan~ ro Perer is probably a c.oncession to such legirim.ariog traditions, but a 'commissioning' of Peter and the disciples is not suggested by Mk 16.7. The only witnesses of the empty tomb are witnesses of his absence, the terrified women, logi~ JO {1983J, pp. 73-98; j. Plt"\fnik, 'Paul's Ap~l.i to Hi.s Damasc.us Experience and 1 Cor JS:S-7: Art' They Legitimations?' Toronto journ41 of Th~,logy 4 (t988), pp. IOl- 1 1; Wdemann, R~tm~afon, pp. 36-37. 79. See Cros~n, 'f.mpcy Tomb'_,p. 152.
166
Post-Mortem Vindication of)e<us in the Sayings Gospel Q
Collins pointed to the association berween assumption and apOthtosis (or 'heroificatioo') in Graeco-Roman thought.•o- In Peter Bolt's opinion~ such an association is not appropriate to Mark.'' Moreover, Mark 16.1-8 is not an as.sumption s-rory: in the first place., assumption is an escape from death, and jesus has cJearly died in Mark; and in the second place-, assumption in the Greek view results in apotheosis, and 'according to Mark's presentation, Jesus has already refused the opportunity of an apotheosis (along t'he more nO('mal lines), when he came. down from rhe mountain of transfiguration (Mk 9.2-lJ)•.u However, tO associate assumption only with apotheosis is to overlook the fact that it could also signify the rerum to the divine realm of a person of divine origin or Status. As argue-d above., the double significance of a$sumprion is brought to expression in Chariton, when Chaereas is confronted with another empty tomb: 'Which of the gods has become my rival and carried o££ Callirhoe and now keeps her with him, against her will but compelled by a mightier fate? ..• Or can it be that I had a goddess as my wife and did not know it, and she was above our human lot? (Chariton, Chaer. 3.3). The attentive reader of Mark would not have interpreted the ditap• pearance of jesus' body from the tomb as an apotheosis, but as a return to the divinity, not only because o f Mark's emphasis on jesus• divine sonship (Mk 1.11; 1.24; 5,7; 9,7; 13,32), but also because of the immediately preceding narrative. 'Now when the centurion who was standing oppooitc him 5aW that he breathed his last in this way, he said, "Truly this man was (a/the] son of God"' (Mk 15.39). As Hamilton suggested then, one motivation for Mark•s U$C of assumption motifs in the empty tomb story may have been 'to s.ltis(y Graeco-Roman expectations aroused by the Son of God Christology'." Q may have made a similar connection between the assumption of jesus and his divine status. This might not be out of the question, pankula.rly given Q's relatively high christology and the fact that ir uses the ride 'Son of God' for Jesus (Q 4.3. 9; compare 10.2t..22t. However, jesus• as.sumption appears to be understood by Q more as a removal to an exalted state in order to await an eschatological office than a retu.r.n of a divine person to the divine realm (although tbe idtas are. nQt mutually exdusivc). 9
9
Implications For $Orne New Testament texts, the exaltation of Jesus could be expressed, or possibly conceptualized, without explicit reference to the resurrection.
80. 140-42, 81. 27-37. 82. 83.
Hamilton, 'Resurrecrion Tradition', p. 419; Collins, &ginnint ofth~ Gospel, pp. P.G. Bolt. ' Mark 16:1·8: The F.mpty Tomb of a Hero?', 1Y,.Bul47 (l9!i'6), pp.
8olt, 'Empry Tomb of a H.tto?', p. 37. Hotmilron, 'Rtlllltrtction Tradition\ p. 4l9.
The A.sumptron of jesus in Q and Early Christianity
167
In some of these cases, it is inappropriate to presume either assumption or
resurrection as the c:hristological category implicit in th.c exaltation language. 1-lowever, the failure of the author of He.brews, for instance, to use what had become traditional language for the resurre'-lion of jesus s hould not be taken
lightly, for it illustrates Utat some authors weu. willing to express their viewsabout jesus• post-mortem vindication, exaltation, and ongoing significance without explicitly engaging the category of (resurrection•. This aUows us to ask whether resurrection was universalJy a 'given' as the model for under&randing the-present and future significance o f jesus. The texts which describe an "assumption• or 'ascent' of jesus from the (f()$5 have little to do with his post..morrem exaltation. The strongest piece of evidence for the currency of the 'assumption' model apan from Q remains Mark's: empty tomb .story which, regardless of its origin. has clear formal similarities with Hellenistic disappearance or assumption stories. Even if the story of the absence of Jetus' body is not pt<· Markan (as there are good grounds for supposing), Mk 16.1-8 suggests that Q 13.34-35 is not the only text - nor was the Q group the only early Christian communiry - to connect Jesus' disappearance {assumption} with his t .x aharion and future esc:hatological role.
CONCLUSION: RfSURRECJ'JON AND/OR ASSUMPTION - How 'DIFFERENT' IS Q? Jt has b<en argued herein that Q 13.34-35, the Jerusalem Lament, uses assumption hmguage to account fo r Jesus' death, 'lindication, and future eschatological role: 'You will noc see me until [the time. comes when] you say, " Blessed is the Goming O ne in the name of rhe Lord"' (v. JSb). The expression ~yo u will not see me' is sintiJar to descriptions of assumption· related disappearance in Hellenistic a$$umption storict, and fu nctions synonymously with the more common djsappearance language. ln additionJ Q 13.3Sb limit> the du.ration of Jc:$us' d i>appeara nce by means of t he 'until' clause introducing the acclamation from Ps. 117.26 LXX. Thjs connecdon between djsappea.rance and return is the sam.e as 1hat made in the j ewjsb traditions about the assumption of cenaln extraordinary individuals. Q 13.34-35 expresses both the rejection of Jesus (and, implicitly, his death) in jerusalem and his dh•ine vindication by means of the correlation bcrv.·~c:n assumption and eschatological function. Q, then, had a stcatc:gy for dealing wilh rhe death of jesus and the problem of legitimation it C"aused. That Q knew Je~us tO have died i.s not an insurmountable difficulty: C'.raeco-Roman traditions were able to describe: post-mortem as.sumprions., and in the Jewish tradition there seems ro have been a development (as seen in Wis. 2- 5 and T. job 39-40} in t he direction of applying assumption language to people who had died. Moreover, Zeller's opinion that Q 13.35 bypasses the deoarh of jesus is nor warranted given rhe deuteronomisric interpretation of his death. early in thi.s logion. 1 'There: are implicacion.s fo r understotnding the christo logkaJ interests of the Q redaction. It was argued that Q 13.34-35, with jesus as its s-peaker, presents an advanced Wisdom chrisrology along the sam~ lines as Q 10.21· 22. In addition, it ap~ars that the jerusalem Lament is the high point of Q's deuteronomist-ic rheology, since it understands Jerusalem•s rejection of jesus ;~s the f;\llminaring iostan' e of impeniten,e. The result, true to deuteron· omistic form, is t he abandonment of j erusalem. However, Q 13.3Sb exp1oits 'he typical assodarion between assumption aod eschatological function to assimilate rhe Wisdom chrisrology in the Lanlent (and prominent elsewhere in Q) t() the: Son of man christology alw promin~nt in Q.
1.
ZeHer. 'Emrik.kung•, p. $29.
Conclusion: How 'Different' is Ql
169
This reading of Q 13.34-35 found .s ome corroboration in Q material about an absent and returning master and about an uns~n and suddenly appearing Son of man. Most impOrtantly, Q 12.42-46, as an addition to the complex which originally concluded with 12.39·40, elucidate-S the coming of the Son of man by means of the parable of rbc abs.cnt master w ho returns unannounced to administer judgment and to dispense reward and punishment. On KJoppcnborg~s compositional profiJc of Q, this redactional add ition was made. during the same redactional phase d uring whic.h was included Q 13.J.Af.J5 as an exprC$sion of the divine vindia~tion of jesus' rejecdon by tbe children of j erusalem. Additionalty, assumption in Q can explain how, in the absence of resurrection theology, Q '-"arne to view the non~arthly j esus as the locus (or paradigm) of rhe smeriologjcal hopes of the community, with the exttlted jesus functioning in much the s.ame way as exalted representative figures in cenain Jewish writings. One broader implication may also be reiterated here. However Mark-'s empry tomb story originared- at the hand of Mark himself, or (more likely) at some stage of the pre-Marlcan tradition- it appears to presume or e)( press the same \•iew, since Mark 16.1-8 refers to rhe disappcatance of Jesus• body without any res\lrrection appearances-. Although earlier s-cholars had been inclined to reckon assumption as a more primitive expression of Jesus• vindication and exaltation than rtsurrecrion, it is dif-ficult tO s ubstantiate theories o( development along a singular trajectory, given the vagaries involved. Having -s aid that, howeve-r., assumption may ac<:ount for the bdief in jesus' heavenly exaltation and (especially) future Parousia in a way that cesu_r.. recti on th~ology a lone (that is. without asc:ensi(m or enthronement language: or imagery) cannot. 1'wo important questions remain, questions that can really only be drawn our inferentially from this study, and for which conclusive answers are impos~ible due tO the nature of the textual evidence. The 6rst questic~n is t hit: can a particular 'prompt' or 'impetus' be isolated for the use of assumption languag~ in Q 13.35? Taken in one sense, this question is really about the Q redaction, but taken in another it is about the significance of the disappearance srory in (or behind) Mk 16.1-8 for Q 13.34-35. lr was shown in Chapter 3 above rhat. in a (cw cascs, tnditions about the assumption of various .sages appear to have been generated by prior views about rhe escharologjcal importance of those $8ges - because, as Haufe remarked, 'only a hislorical perron who was rec-eived into the heavenly realm by means of a bodily a,s swnprion could ceceive a sptocia) eschatological function'. 2 This m~ans a.ssumption language could have bten included in Q 13.35 to explain~ pOssibly secondarily, why the c.~rthly jesus should be thought of as the coming Son of man. This possibility cannot be excluded. But this would not explain - given the absence from Q of language of Jesus' resurrection and exaltation - why thar particular c:hristological
2.
Haufe. 'EntrUckut~g und n<:batoloeische Punktion', p. JOS (author'$ traMlarioo).
170
Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sa)'ings GosfHll Q
deYelopmeot cx:curred in the 6tst place. On the other baod, the fact that •absent masttt' parables were redactionaHy associated with coming Son of man material, an association which is consistent with the assumption motifs of disappearance/absence and escha[Qiogical rerurn, could suggest rhar 'death- assumption- return' was the 'given' cb.ristological schema, at least at the later stage(s) in Q's composition. This in turn could suggest that a belief in jesus' 'assumption' led not only to the redaction of Q 13.34-35 (along the lines proposed here) and to the redaction o f Q 12.39-46 and Q 17-19, but also, at a prior level, to the belief that jesus was going to come again as the Son of man. ll the Q group knew of a pre~Markan tradition or rumour about an empry tomb or a missing body, a more obvious conclusion to draw than resurrection would be assumptiotl, a$ Chaereas 3 illustrates. G iven the currency of ideas connecting assumption with eschatological function it would then be a short step to thinking about jesu.s 3$ the non·earthly and coming Son of man., the locus of the community's soreriologicaJ hope and the paradigm of t heir eschatological vindication. Such a scenario is admit· tedly conjecrural, and conclusions that focus mainly on literary acriviry have bener support. This leads to the second question: how diffetent is Q? On the compositional le:ve)., it is not necessary to suppose either that the-Q group presumed that jesus had risen from the dead (but did not for whatever reason allow that to influence the:ir compositional activity), nor conversely that they we~ completely isolated from groups that understood Jesus' ongoing significance in terms of resurrection. For on th is level, the use of certain linguistic or t heological manoeuvres is simply that, and it may be tbar assumption language presented itSelf as a suita ble way to deal with the problem of Jesus• post-monem vindication in terms of his future eschatological significance. But then why is it that some early Chrlsrian texts (like the leners of Paul} attend exclusively tO traditions about the: appearances of the risen Christ, while others (as argued hete for Q and for Mk 16.1·8) attend exclusively to jesus' disappearance? Need these textual data have resulted from originally independent uaditions circulating in isolated groups? One approach is to 5uggest, as Kloppe:nborg did for a ~salvific' understanding of jesust death, that it is more Hkely that the Q group was unaware of such views rather than that they knew but avoided them.l According co Kloppenborg, within Q the sayings of jesus (on the one hand) are validated both by a testing sequence (Q 4) and by presenting him as SfHlaking for/a• Sophia IQ 7.35; 10.21 ·22),' but 'assumption' in Q does address the problem of Jesus' death, rhough it cmpha.sites less the meaning of his death (as saJvific} and more his future eschatological role. Thus 4the conclusion to be drawn is not that Q was oblivious to the jssues of the de3th aod vindication
3. 4.
Kloppenbors, &=ar;•g Q, p. 374. Kfoppcnborg, E..xcavt~ting Q. p. 375.
Conclusion: How 'Different' is Q?
171
of J<Sus but that Q's approach was signi(i"'ntly different from those of Paul and his imme.dlare predecessors'. 5 Another approach is t3ken by Hurtado, who highlights the christological 'schemas' of various traditionaJ materials in the NT writings (including 1 Thess. 1.9-10; Rom. 1.3-4; and Phil. 2 .6-11) in order to illustrate that 'the dearh a.scension 5thcma of Q is neither incompatible with the other chris· tological scbemas nor unique to Q~.' The issue of •uniqueness to Q' is quite be$ide the point, for (as seen in Chapter 6) other scholars than Hurtado have tried to demonstrate a death-ascension schema in the texts he employs, and in others as well. The question of 'compatibility' is mooted by Mark, who 4
combines a text dc:scribing the disappearance of jesus with indications of his assent to traditions about Jesus' appearances. For Q, applying assumption language to the problems of Jesus' death and present and future significance is an approach to those problems that is different from the use of resurrection. How fa r Q was in dialogue (or disagreement) with ocher groups or views. one way or another-, may never be established. Perhaps the most cautioU-s way forward ls simply to state that cwo early and divergent tt.xtual cxprc5Sions of what happened to jesus after his d~th - resurrection and assumption - focus either on his appearances or on his disappearance. The author of Mark brings these two textual expressions together inm one narrative: Jesus has disapPf".ared, according to the young man. and this means r_h at he has been raised and will be seen by his followers (Mk 16.6 -7). Subsequent narrative developments tend to enhance this Markan compromise between disappearance and appea_rance, so that Peter, the primary wimess of the appearing Jesus (I Cor. 15.5; U . 24.34) also validates tbe empty tomb (Lk. 24.12, 24; J n 20.3-10), but also so that the primacy witnesses of the disappearing Jesus meet him o utside the tomb (Mr. 28.9-10; Jn 20.14- 18). Howevc~ looking back befo re Mark's gospel, to the Sayings Gospel Q, we find grounds lor allowing that members of early Jesus movements cou1d think about his ongoi.ng post-mortem existence: ln rttms other than resurreccion, and foe considering thar another category - that of a$Sumption - enter the vocabulary of scholars considering how <:hristologica!
views were expressed at the level of Christian odgios.7
S.
6. 1.
Kloppc:nborg. bC4114tircg Q. p. 37:9 (ernphuis orisi.ull. Hwudo, Lord ]..sus Christ, pp. 236-3?. Cf. Robift$01l, 'JeSU$- From East«'.
BmuoGRAPHY
1. Biblical Writings
Elliger, K., ct al. (eds.), Biblia Hebraii!JJ Stultgartensiao Editio funditus renovata (Stuttgart: DeutSChe Bibelgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1984 ). Septuaginta: VetU$ Testamentum Grae~um auctoritate Academiae Litteramm Gotting1!11$iS ditum (Gi:ittingcn: Vandenboeck & Ruprocht, !966-). Nesde, E., K. Aland, er al. (~ds.), Novum r~stamentum Graece (Stuttgart: Deutsche llibelgesellscbaft, 27th edn, 1993). Aland, B., et al. (eds.), The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibclgcscllschaft; London: United Bible Societies, 4th edn, 8th rpr, 2001). jfilic;her, A. (ed.), Itala: Das neue Testament in altlateinischer Ob~rlie{erung. II. Marcusevangelium (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1940). Tl~e Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New T.staments: New Revi"'d Standard Version (Narional Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.;
Toronto: Canadian Bible Society, !989, 1993). Robinson, J .M ., P. Hoffmann, and J.S. Kloppenborg (eds.), The Critical Edition of Q: A Synopsis including the Gospel$ of Malthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with ling/ish, German and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Hermeneia Supplements, 1; Minneapolis: Fonress; Leuvcn: Peeters, 2000).
2. Works Cited Abegg, M.G., Jr., 'Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q4 27, and the Teacher of Righteousness', in P.W. Flint and C. A. Evans (eds.), Eschatology, Me$$ianism and the Dead Sea. Scrolls (Studies in the Dead Sea Sc.rolls aod Related literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 61-73. Adler, W., 'Enoch in Early Christian l iterature', SBLSP (1978) , pp. 1.271-5. Allinson, F.G. (trans.), Menander: The Principal fragments (lCl; London: Heinemann; New York:
Pumam~s.,
1921).
Allison, D.C., Jr., ' Man. 23:39 =luke t3:35b as a Conditional Prophecy', JSNT 18 (1983), pp. 75-84. -The jesus 1Tadition in Q (Harrisbur~ PA: Trinity Prtss Jnternational, 1997).
174
Bibliography
The lnteruxtual jes~U: Scripture in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Pre$S International, 2000). Andersen, FJ. {trans.), '2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) £noc.h', in Charlesworth (ed.), OTP, pp. 1.91-213. Attridge, H. W., The Bpistle to the Hebrews: A C<>mmentary on the Bpistk to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989). Aune, O.E., Revelation 6·16 (WBC, S2B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1998). Babbitt, F.C., er al. (trans.), Plutarch, Moralia (17 vols. in 16; LCl; london: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927-1976). Baeon, B. W., Studks in Matthew (london: Henry Holt, 1930). Banlet, J. V., 'The Source> of St. Luke's Gospel', in W. Sanday (ed .), Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 31 ~3. Bauckham, R.j., ' Enoch and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah', in E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 16/2 (TU, 129; Berlin: Akadcmie, 1985), pp. 69-76. Bayer, H.F., }~sus ~ Pudidions of Wnditation and Ruu"eetion (W\JN'f, 2120; Ttibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). 8egg, C., (,.Josephus's Ponrayal of [he Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses": Sorne Observations',]BL 109 (1990), pp. 691- 93. Berger, K., Die Amen· Wone ]esu: Eint Untersuc.hung zum Problem der Legitimation in apokalyptischer Rede (BZNW, 39; Berlin: de Gruyte~ 1970). -Die Auferstehung des Propheten und die ErhOhung des Menschensohnes (StiNT, 13; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976). Bertram, G., 'Die Himmdfahn Jcsu vom Kreuz an und der Glaube an seine Aufersrehung', in K.L. Schmidt (ed.), Pestgabe fur Adolf Dei$$mann wm 60. Geburtstag (TUbingen: Mohr Siebock, 1927), pp. 187- 217. Bickermann, E., 'Das leere Grab', ZNW 23 (1924), pp. 28 1- 92; rpt P. Hoffmann (ed.), Zur no-ul<:SI4mentlichen Oberlie{erung von der Auferstehung J"'" (Wege der Forschung, 522; Darmsradr: Wissenschaftlicbe Buchgesellschaft, 1988), pp. 271-84. -~Die rOmische- Kaiseraporheose', ARW 27 {1929), pp. 1- 31; rpr A. Wlosok (ed.), 1/.omischer Kaiserkult (Wege der Forschung, 372; Darmstadt: Wtssenschahliche Bucbgesellscbafc, 1978), pp. 82- 121. Black, M., 'The "Two Witnesses .. of Rev 11:3f in Jewish and Christjan ApocaJyptic Tradition·, in W.O. Dnvles and C.K. Barrett (eds.), Donum Genti/icium (Festschrift D. Daube; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), pp. 227-37. - 'The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and C<>nttibution [0 Chriscological Origins', in Charlesworth (ed.), The Meuiab, pp. 145-'8. Bolt, P.G., 'Mark 16:1·8: The Emp
Bibliograpby
175
Borgen, P., ~Ht-.avenly Ascent in Philo: An Examination of Selected Passages•, in C.A. Evans and J.H. Charlesworth (eds.), The Pse>4depigrapha and Early Biblical lnterpmation QSPSup, 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993), pp. 246~8.
-·Moses, jesus, and the Roman Emperor: Observations in Philo's Writings and the Revelation of john', NovT 38 ( 1996), pp. 14.5-59. Borger. R., 'Tbe Incantation Seties Bit Miseri and Enoch's Ascension tO Heaven', in D.T. Tsumura and R.S. Hess (eds.), '/ St11died Inscriptions from before the Flood': All
vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Unjversity Press, 1937-1950).
Casey, M., 'The Use of the Term "'Son of M::m" in the Similitudes of Enoch', }Sj 7 ( 1976), pp. 1- 29. --son of Man: The /nterpr
176
Bibliography
Catchpole, D.R., 'The Angelic Son of Man in Luke 12:8', NovT 24 (1982), pp. 255- 65. -The Quest for Q {Edinburgh: T8cT Clark, 1993). Cavallin, H .C.C., Life Aft., Death: Paul's Argument for the Resurrection of the Dead in I Cor IS. Part 1: An Enquiry inro rhe jewish Background (ConBNT, 711; Lund: Gleerup, 1974). Cazzaniga, l. (ed.), Anloninus Libera lis: Me
ColJins, A. Yarbro, 'The Son of Man Sayings in the Sayings Source, in P.J. Kobelski and M .P. Motg1ln (eds.), To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies (Festschrift J.A. Fitzmyer; New York: Crossroad, 1989), pp. 369- 89. -The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings ofMark in Context (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992).
-
'Aporheosis and Resurrection', in P. Borgen and S. Gi\'crson (cds.), The New Tesrament and Hel/enistU; Judaism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1997), pp. 88-100. Collins, J.j., 'The Heavenly Representative: The "Son of Man'" in rhe Similitudes of Enoch', in J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickd,burg (cds.), Ideal Figure> in An
Bibliography
177
Colson, F.H., G.H, Whitake~ j.W. Earp, and R. Marcus (trans.), Philo (10 vols., with 2 suppl. vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Universicy Press, 1929-197 I). Conybeare, F.C. (trans.), Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tya,., the Epistks of Apol/onius, and the Treatise of Eusebius (2 vols.; LCL; London: Hti11tmaon; New York: Macmillan, 1912).
Croatto, J.S., 'Jesus, Prophet Hke Elijah, and Prophet-Tea<:bc-r like Moses in l uke·Acrs',JBL 124 (2005), pp. 451~5. Crossan, J .D., 'Empey Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1·8)', in W.H. Kelber (ed.), The Passion in Mark: Studie. on Mark 14-16 (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976), pp. 135- 52. - - The Birth of Christianity: Discovttring What Happet~e.d in the Years l1t1m
Memoriam J. Coppens; BETL, 59; Leuven: Lcuven Unjvcrsiry Press and
Peeters, 1982). Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (trans. B.l. Woolf; New York: Chari .. Scribner's Sons, 1935). Dupont, j., 'Lc Logion de douze trones (Mt 19,28; Lc 22,28·30)', Bib 45 {1964), pp. 355-92. Edwards, R.l\., The Sign ofJonah in the Teaching of the Evangelists and Q (London: SCM, 1971). - A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy and Wisdom (Philadelphia: Fortre!S, 1976). Ehrman, B.D, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effecr of Early ChristologictZI Controversies on the Text of the New 1"e.stament {New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993). Elliott, j.K. (ed.), The Apocryphal New Testa ment: A Collection of Apocryphal Chrjsti4n Literature in an English Translation (Oxford: Clarendon, 1993). Evans, C.F., Rssu"sction and the New Tutament (SBT, 2112; Loudon: SCM,
1970). Farmer, W.R., The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem (Louisville, KY: Westminster john Knox, 1994).
178
Bibliography
Farrer, A.M., 'On Dispensing with Q', in D.E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in tht Gospels (In Memoriam R.H. lightfoot; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955), pp. 55-88. Fiamyer, J.A., The Gospel according 10 Luke (AB, 28- 28A; 2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1981- 1985). Fleddermann, H.T., 'John and the Coming One (Matt 3:11·12/1 Luke 3:1617}', SBLSP 23 (1984), pp. 377-84. -'The Q Saying on Confessing and Denying', SBLSP 26 (1988), pp. 606-16. - -'The Cross and Discipleship in Q ', SBLSP 27 (1988), pp. 472-82. -'The End of Q', SBLSP29 (1990), pp. 1-10. Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts (BETL, 122; Leuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1995). -Q: A Reconstruction and Comment4ry (Biblical Tools and Studies, I; Leuven: Peeters, 2005). Focant, C., 'Du Fils de i'Homme assis (Lc 22,69) au Fils del'Homme debour (Ac 7,56}: Enjeux thcologique et litteraire d'un changement semantique', in J. Verheyden (ed.), in T he Unity of Luke-Acts (BETL, 142; Leuven: Leuven Uruversiry Press and Peet«S, 1999), pp. 563- 76. Franklin, E., cA Passion Narrative for Q?', in C. Rowland and C. F1ttcberLewis (eds.), Underst4nding, Studying and Reading (Fescschrift j. Ash ron; JSNTSup, 153; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998), pp. 30-47. Frazer, j.G. (trans.), Apollodorus, The Library (LCL; 2 vols.; London: Heinemann; New York: Putnam•s. 1 921).
Frazer, j.G. (trans.), Ovid, Fasti (rev. G.P. Goold; LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univmity Press, 2nd edn, 1996). Garland, D.E., The Intention of Matthew 2J (NovTSup, S2; Leiden: Brill, 1979). Georgi, D., 'Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil 2,6·11', in E. Dinkier (ed.), Ut und Geschichte (Festschrift R. Bulrmann; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1964), pp. 26>--93. Goold, G.P. (ed. and trans.), Chariton: CaUirhoe (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 19.95).
Goulder, M.D., Luke: A New Paradignt USNTSup, 20; 2 vols.; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1989). GraBer, E.• Die Noherwartung )esu (SBS, 61; Stuttg
Origine et signification', RSR 46 {1958), pp. S-26, 181-210. Grobe!, J<., •• ... Whose Name was Neves••, NTS 10 (1964}, pp. 37.3-82. Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium "ach LukaJ (THKNT, 3; Berlin: Evangelische Verlaganstah, 2nd edn, 1961 ). Grzybek., E., Du calendrin macldonien au ca/endritr ptoltmalque: probl~meJ de chronologie hellbtistique (Schwei.u rische Beitrige z.ur
Bibliography
179
Altertumswissensc.haft. 20; Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1990). Gundry, R .H., Matthew: A Commentary on His Htmdbook for a Mbced Ch"rch Under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1994).
Haacker, K., and P. Schafer, "N3cbbiblische Traditiontn vom Tod des Moses', in 0 . Betz et al. (eds.), jos"{Jhus-Studien (Festschrift 0. Michel; Gortingen: Vanden.hoeck & Ruprecht, 1,74), pp. 147-74. Haenchen, E., 'Matthiius 23', ZTK 48 (1951), pp. 38-63. Halperin, D.J., ~Ascenslon or Invasion: Implications of the Heavenly jou.rney in Ancient judaism', R•l18 (1988), pp. 47-67.
Hamilton, N.Q., 'Resurrec1ion Tradition and the ComJ>O$iti.on of Mark', JBL 84 (1965), pp. 415-21. Hare, D.R.A., The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapoli5: Fortress, 1990). Hare, D.R.A. (trans.), 'The Liv.,. of the Prophets', in Charlesworth (ed.), OTP, pp. 2.379- 99. Harnack, A., The Sayings of jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke (trans. J.R. Wilkinson; New York: Putnam's; London: Williams & Norgate, 1908). Harrington, D.J. (uaos.), 'Pseudo-Ph.ilo', in Charlesworth (ed.), OTP, pp. 2.297-377. Harmon, A.M., K. Kilburn, and M.D. MacLeod (trans.), Lucian (LCt; 8
vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press, 1913-1967). Haufe~
G., 'Ent.rUckung und eschatologisc:be Funktion im Spitjude:nturn•,
ZRCC 13 (1961),pp.l05-13. Hawkins,J.C., Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Stlldy of the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon, 2nd edn, 1909). -'Probabilities as to the So-Called Double Tradition of St. Matthew and St. luke', in Sanday (ed.), Studies irr the Synoptic Problem, pp. 95- 138. Hays, R.B., '"The Righteous One• as Escha tological Deliverer: A Case Study in Paul's Apocalyptic Hermeneutics', in J. Marcus and M.L. Soards (eds.), Apocalyptic and the New Testament (Festschrift J.l . Martyn; JSNTSup, H ; Sheffield: JSOT Pre•s, 1989), pp. 191- 215. Hayward, R., ' Phinehas -The Same is Elijah: The Origin of a Rabbinic Tradition', JjS 29 (1978), pp. 22-38. Hazzard, R.A., Imagination ofa Monarchy: Studt'~ in Ptolemaic Propagonda (Phoenix Supplementary Volume, 37; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2000). Head, P.M., 'On the Christology of the Gospel of Peter', VC 46 (1992), pp. 209- 24. Heil, C. (ed.), Q 12:8·12: Confessing or D81lying; Speaking against the Holy Spirit; Hearings before Synagog.«• (Oocumenta Q; Leuven: Peeters, 1997).
Hengel, M., 'jesus as Messianic Tt.acher of Wisdom and rhe Beginnings of Chrisrology', in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1995), pp. 73-117.
HiU, A.E., Malachi: A New Translation with lntroduaiorr and Commentary (All, 250; New York: Doubleday, 1998).
180
Bibliography
Himmelfutb, M.,'A Report on Enoch in Rabbinic Licerarure', SBLSP (1978), pp. 1.259-09. -Ascent to Heaven in jewish and Christian Apocalypses {Oxford; N~w York: Oxford University Press, 1993). -··me Practice of Ascent in tht Ancient Mediterranean World•1 in J.J. Collins and M. Fish bane (eds.), Death, ~and Other Worldly Journeys (Albany, NY: Srare Universiry of New York Press, 1995), pp. 12 1-37. Hirsch, E., Dk Friihgeschichte des Evangetiums: Heft 2, Dk Vorlagen des Lukas und das Sondergut des Matthiius (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1941). Hock, R.F., The Infan
der Erde - Licht der Welt: &egetiSGhe Studien ZMm Matthiiusevangelir<m (Festschrift A. Vogtle; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibclwerk, 1991), pp. 165-202.
-'QR und der Menschensohn: Eine vorli ufige Skizze', in Van Segbroeck et al. (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992, pp. 421-56. - 'Q 13.34-35: Second Response', appendix 10 S.R. johnson, '552: Q 13,34· 35' (unpublished databa"" prepared for rhe lnrernational Q Project Work Sessions, 1994). --'The Redaction of Q and rhe Son of Man' A Preliminary Sketch', in Piper (ed.), Gospel Behind the Gospels, pp. 159- 98. 'Ht.rrsche:r oder Richter iiber Israel?', in G. Sass and K. Wengst {eds.), fa und Nein: Christliche Theok>gie im Ange.sicht lsraels (Festschrift W. Schrage; Neukircben·VIuyn: Neultircbener, 1998), pp. 253-04. -'Der Menschensohn in Lukas 12:8', NTS 44 (1998), pp. 357-79. Hoffmann, P..,J.E. Amon., U. Brauner, and T. Hieke, 'Confessing or Denying', in Hell (ed.), Q 12:8·12, pp. 1-425. Hoffmann, P., S.H. Brandenburger, U. Brauner, and T. Hieke, Q 22:28,30: You Will Judge lhe Twelve Tribes of Israel (ed. C. Heil; Documenta Q; Lcuvcn: Peeters, 1998). Holbl, G., A History of the Ptolemoi< Empire (Londnn; New York: Routledge, 2001). HoUeman,]., Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio· Historical Study of Paul's £schatology in J Corinthians lS (NovTSup, 84; leiden: Brill, 1996). Horrell, O.G., and C.M. Tuckett (eds.), Christology, Controversy and Community: New Testament E.$SQ)'S (Festschrift D.R. Cuchpolc:~ NoVl'Sup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2000).
Bibliograplry Horsley, R., 'Social Conflict in the Synoptic Sayings Source
181
Q', in J.S.
Kloppenborg (ed.), Conflict a.n d Invention: Literary, Rhetorical and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1995), pp. 37- 52. Hultgren.• A., The Ris~ of Normative Christianity (Minneapolis: For[r~s, 1994). Hurtado, l.W., lmd jes~~S Christ: Devotion to ]~.sus in Earliest CIJristianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003). Isaac, E. (trans.), ' I (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch', in Charleswonh (ed.), OTP, pp. l.S-$9. Jacobson, A.D., 'The Literary Unity of Q',]BL 101 (1982), pp. 365-89. - -'Apocalyptic and the Sayings Source Q', in Van Segbroeck et al. (eds.), The Four Gosp•ls 1992, pp. 403-19. - The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Foundations sod Facets; Sonoma, CA: Pokbridgc, 1992). jacoby F. (ed.), Die Frogmen~ der griecl1ischen Historiker (3 parts, 15 vols.; Leiden: Brill, 1950- 1964). Jarvinen, A., 'Jesus as Community Symbol in Q', in Lindemann (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical jesus, pp. 5 15- 21. Jeremias. J.• Ne-w Testament- Theology (trans. J. Bowden; NTL; London: SCM, 1971). Johnson, L.T., The l'irtt and Serond utu!rs to Trmothy: A New Tran.slation with /ntToduaion and Commentary (A.B, 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001 ). Johnson, S.R., ' SS2: Q 13:3-4-35' (unpublished da
182
Bibliography
- The Composition ofthe Sayings S<>urce: Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom Redaeiety of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 1998). - -'The Memory of Violence and the Death o f jesus in Q', in A. Kirk and T. Thatcher (eds.), Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early Christianity (Scmeia Studies, 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2005), pp. 191-206. Klijn, A.F.j. (trans.), '2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch', in Charlesworth (ed.), OTP, pp. 1.615-52. Kloppenborg, j.S., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in AncW.t Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987). - 'Symbolic Eschatology and the Apocalyptiuras of the Sylf()pti< Gospel.: Vol. 2, St. Luke and St. Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957).
Koch, D.·A., 'Der Text von Hab 2.4b in der Septuag_inta und im Ncucn Tescament'. ZNW 76 (1985), pp. 68-85. Kolarcik, M., The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1-6: A Study of Literary Structure and lnt"1>rel4tion (AnBib, 127; Rome: Pontifieio brituto Biblieo. 1991 ). Knft, R.A.,'Philo Uoscpbus, Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon) on Enoch', SBLSP (1978), pp. 1.2.13- 7. Krame-r. S.N. (trans.), 'SP.meri.an Myths otod Epic Tales\ in Pritchard (ed.), ANET, pp. 37-59. Krueger, D. (ed. and tuns.}, Symeon the Holy Fool: Leontiu.s's 'Life" and the
Bibliography
183
Late Antique City (Transformation of rhe Classical Herirage, 25; Berkdey, CA: Universir:y oi Californ ia Press, 1996). Kiimme~ W.G., Vcrhei.sSJung zur es
- /esu.s Son of M4n: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the Gospels in the Light of Recent Research (London: SPCK, 1983). Lindemann, A. (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical jesus (BETL, 158; Lcuven: leuven University Press and Peeters, 2001). Ups, H. von, Wei.sbeitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament (WMANT, 64; Munich: Neultirehener, 1990). LobJink, G., Die Himmelfahrt ]esu: Untersuchungen tu den Himmelfahrts• und Erhohu,.gstexten bei Lukas (SANT, 26; Munich: Kosel, 1971). Lohmeye~ E., Galiliia und jerusalem (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1936). -Kyrios Jesus~ € intt Untersuc:hung zu Phil. 2,5- 11 (Darmstadt: Wisscnscbaftliche Buchgesellschaf<, 2nd edn, 1961). Longenecker, R.N .., New Wine into Fresh WiMdim: C<JntexhuJlizing tht Early Christian Confessions (Peabody, MA; Hendrickson, 1999). LUdemann, G., The Resurrection of jesus: History, Experience, Theology (London: SCM, 19.94). Lohrmann, D., Die Redaktion der Logienque//e (WMANT, 33; NeukircbenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969). - 'Henoch und die Meranoia', ZNW 66 (1975), pp. 103- 16 . - 'The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q',]BL 108 (1989), pp. 5 1-71 . Lux., U., Manh~ 8-20: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minne.apolis: Foruess, 2001). MacCormack, S.G., Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1981). Mack, B.L., A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988). - 'Lord of rhe Logia: Savior or Sage?', in C.W. Hedrick eta!. (eds.), Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings (Festschrift J.M. Robinron; Forum Fascicles, 1; Sonoma, CA; Polebridge, 1990), pp. 3-18.
184
-
Bibliography
The Lo.e Gospel: The Book ofQ and Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1993). Malberbe, A.j., The Letters to the Thessaloniari.S: A New Translation with /nt.odw:tion and Commentary (AB, 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000). Manns, F. (ed. and tran$.), Le rJcit de Ia Dormition de Marie (Vatic.an gree 1982): eonr.r-ibution ii l'ttude des origines tk l'exegese chritienne {Collectio maior, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 33; jerusalem: Franciscan, 1989). Manson, T. W., The Sayings of jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels According to St. Matthew and St.. Luke Arranged with Introduction and Comme?Jtary {London: SCM, 1937). Mara,. M.G. (ed. and rrans.)~ &angile de Pierre: Introduction, Uxt.e critiqut, tradu&tion, commentaire et index (SC, 201; Paris: Cerf, 1973). Marrin., R.P., A Hymn o{ Christ: Philippimu 2:5- 11 in Rec.ent lnt-erprekltion & in the Setting of Early ChristiatJ Worship (Downers Grove, JL; lnterVarsiry, 3rd edn, 1997). Marxsen, W., Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, !969). Me-Cam, j. W., 'The Gospel of Peter: Docerism Reconsidered', NTS 30 (1984), pp. 258- 73. McKnight, S., 'Public Dcclarntion or Final Judgment? Matthew 10:26-27 = Luke 12:2·3 as a Case of Creacive Redaction', in B. Chilmn and C. Evans (eds.), Authenticating the Words of }es,. (NITS, 2811; Leiden: Brill, 1999), pp. 363-83. Meadors, E.P., jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation (WUNT, 2/72; Tllbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995). Meeks, W.A., The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the johannine Christology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967). Mcr1dein, H., 'Mk 16, 1-8 als Epilog des Markusevangeliums•, in C. Focant (ed. ), The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism (BETL, 110; l.euven: Lc:uven University Press and Peeters, 1993), pp. 209-38. Metzger, B.M ., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (Stuctgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1994). Michael, J.H., 'The lament over jerusalem', A}T22 (1918), pp. 101-13. Miller, F.J. (trans.), Ovid, Metamorphoses (rev. G.P. Goold; LCL; Cambridge-, MA: Harvard Unlverslty Pre.ss; London: Heinemann, Jrd edn, 1984). Miller, R.J., 'The Rejection of the Prophets in Q', ]BL 107 ( 1988), pp. 225-40. - 'bnmortallty and Religious lderuity in Wisdom 2- 5", in Tau5sig and Castelli (eds.), ll.tian Origins, pp. 199- 213. Mimouni, S.C., Dormition et assomption tk Marie: histoire d~s traditions 4nciennes (Theologie bistoriquc, 98; P:uis: Be.aucheme. 1995}. Morenz., S. (cd. and trans.), Dit! Geschichte von Joseph tkm Zimmermann !TU, 56; Berlin: Akademie, 1951 ).
Bibli~aphy ~oun.,.., W.O.,
185
Pastoral Epistk$ (WBC, ~; Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
2000). Myllykooki, M., 'The Social Hisrory of Q and the jewi1h War'. io R. Uro (ed.), Symbols and Strata, pp. 146-99. Neirynek, F., 'Rtcent Dc:vdopmeou in the Study of Q', in Dc:lobcl (ed.), Log/a, pp. 29-75. -'Q: Fr<>m Soutce ro Go.pel', ETL 71 (1995), pp. 421-30.
Nic:ltelsburg, G. W.E., Resurret:tion, Immortality a'fJ E.ternal Life in l•tutestam
- 'The Genre and Function of the Markan Pa$$ion Narrative'. HTR 73 ( 1980), pp. 153-84. 'Resurreetion: Early judaism and Chriscianity', IIBD S, pp. 684- 91. Nickelsburg, G. W.E., and J.C. VanderKam led. and rrans.), 1 Em>
Palmer, D.W., 'Origin, Form, and Purpose of Mark 16;4 in Codex BobbirnsiJ•, JTS 27 (1.976}, pp. 113-22. Papanikolaou, A., Chariton·Studien: Unttr~uchungen :;Hr Sprache unJ Chrono logie der gn·~chischm roman~ (Hypomnematu, 37; GOttingen: Vondenhoeek & Ruprecht, 1973). Parsoos. M.C., The Dtporture of jesus in Luke~Acls: 'l'he A~eension Narratives in Context (JSNTSup, 21; Sheffield: ]SOT Prets, 1987). Pa ulsen, H ., 'Mk XVI1 ·8' , NovT 22 (1980), pp. 138-75. Pearson, B.A.• •The Pierpont Morgan Fragmenu o( a Coptic Enoch Apocryphon', in G. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies o n the Testament o{ Abraham !SBtSCS, 6; Mi.,oula, MT: Scholars, 1976), pp. 227-83. Pea.sc, A.S., •Some AspectS of lnvisibitiry•, Harvard St.ulits in Cla.uical PhiloJoo 53(1942), pp. 1-36. Peek, W., Griechisd>e Gr,J,gedichu, Griechisd> uffd D&ISch (Schriften und Quellen der Allen Welt, 7; &din: Akadcmie-V.rlag, 1960). Perrin, B. (trans.), Plu1<1rch's Uvea ILCL; II vols.; London: Heinemann; New York: Macmillan, 191<1-1926). Pmin, N, 'lbe Son ot Man in the Syooprjc Tradition', BibR<S 13 ( 1968~ pp. J-25. Pesch, R., 'Zur Enmchung des Glaubens an di< Auferste hungjesu', TQ 153 (1973), pp. 201-28.
-
'Der Sch luB der vormarkinischen Pa ssionsgesehichtc und des Mnrkusevongeliums: Mk 15,42-16,8', in M. Snbbc (ed.), L'6vangile selon
Bibliography
186
Marc: Tradition et redaction {8E·rL, 34; Leuven: Leuveo University Press and Peeters, 1974), pp. 365-410. --Das Markusevangelium (HTK.l\.1rf, 2; 2 vo)s.; Freiburg: Herder, 2nd edn, 1980). - 'Zur Enrsrehung des Glaubens an die Aufecsrehung Jesu: Ein neuer Versuch', Freiburger Zaitschrift fUr Phi/Qsophie und Theologie 30 (1983), pp. 73-98. Pfeiffer, R. (cd.), Callimachus (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1949). Piper, R.A., Wisdom in the Q Tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of ]e!ius (SNTSMS, 61; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). Piper, R.A. (ed.), The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (NovTSup, 75; Leiden: Brill, 1995). Plevnik, J., ;The Taking lip of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:13· 18', CBQ 46 (1984), pp. 274- 83. 'Paul's Appeals to His Damascus Experience and I Cor 15:5-7: Aie They Legitimations?' Toronto journal of Theology 4 (1988), pp. 101-11. Pokorny, P., The Genesis of Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987). Polag, A., Die Christologie Jer Logienquelle (WMANT, 4S; Ncukirchc:nVIuyn: Neukircbener, 1977). 'The Theological Cen~ of the Sayings Source', in P. Sruhlmacher (ed.), The GospeJand the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 97-105. Price, S.R.F, 'From Noble Funerals to Divine Cui~ The Consecration of Roman Emperors', in S. Price and D. Cannadine (eds.), Rituals of Royalty: Power
and Ceremonial in 'Traditional Societie.s (Past and Present Publications; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 56- 105. Pritchard, J.B. (ed.), Ancient Near &mern Texts Rei<Jting to the Old Testameni (Princeton, Nj: Princeton Universicy Press, 3rd edo., 1969). Rabbinowirz, j. (trans.), Midrash Rabbah: Deuteronomy (ed. H. Freedman and M. Simon; London: Soncino, 1974). Ramsay, W.M., Luke the Physician, and Other Studies in the History of Religion (London: Hodder, 1908). Reardon, B.P. (ed. and rrans.), Collected Greek Novels (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989). Rengstorf, K., Die Auferstehung jesu: Form, Art und Sinn der urchristlichen Osterbotuha{t (W.nen-Ruhr: Luther, 1952).
Robef[s, A., and J. Donaldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene FatlJers (1 0 Yo1s.; rpf Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994 fi88S-1887J). Robinson, F. (ed. and trans.), Coptic Ap<>rtS and Studies, 4.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Pre>s, 1896). Robinson, J.M., 'jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels', in R.L. Wilken (ed.}, Aspects of Wisdom in Judoism and Early Christianity (South 8end, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), pp.
1-16. -
'jeous - From Easter to Valenrinus (or to the Aposdes' Creed)',JBL 101
( 1982), pp. S- 37.
Bibliography
187
--'The Son of Man in the Sayings Gospel Q' , in C. Elsas (ed.), Tradition und Translation: z,m Problem der interltultu-rell~n Obersetzbark.eit r
--Enrriickung - Aufnahme - Himmelfahrt: Untersuchungen zu eincm Vorsttllungsbl!f'tich im Allen Testament (FzB, 10; Sturtgarr: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 2nd edn, 1976). --'Zum Thema "Entrilckung" im Alten Testament', BZ 26 (1982), pp. 34- 49. - Das BU<:h der Weisheit: Ein Kr>mmentar (Wiirzburg: Eehter, 1986). 'Der friihe Tod des Gerechren nach Weisb 4,7-19: Ein Psalmthem~ in weisheitlicher Fassung', in F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Haag (eds.), Fr.ude an
188
Bibliography
der Weisung des Herrn: Beitrage zur Theologie der Psalmen (F..tschrift H. Gross; SBB, 13; Srungart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986), pp. 325-47. Schmitt, C., 'Das Zeichcn des Jona', ZNW 69 (1978), pp. 123-29. Schneemelcber, W. (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha (trans. R.M. Wilson; 2 vols.; louisville:: Westminster john Knox, rev. edn, 1991-1993). Schulz., S., Q: Die S(n'uchquelle der Evangelisten (Z urich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972\. Schiinna.nn, H, 'Beobacbcungen zum Menschensohn·Tire! in der Redequelle', in R. Schnackenbucg and R. Pesch (eds.), jesus und der Menschensohn (Festschrift A. Vogde; Freiburg (Breisgau): Herde~ 1975), pp. 124-47. - -'Observations on the Son of Man Tide in the Speech Source•, in j .S. Kloppenborg (ed.), The Shape of Q: Signal ES$ti)'S on the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 74-97. Seeley, D .. •Narrative, the Righteous Man and the Philosopher: An Analysis of rhe Story of the Dikaios in Wisdom 1- 5', jSP 7 (1990), pp. 55-78. - 'Blessings and Boundaries: lnterpret:Hions of Jesus• Death in Q', in Kloppenborg and Vaage (eds. ), Early Christianity, Q and jesus, pp. 131-46. - 'Jesus' Death in Q', NTS 38 (1992), pp. 222- 34. Segal, A. F., 'Heavenly Asc.ent in Hellenistic Judaism~ Eotrly Chdstiaoicy and their Environment', ANRW23.2 (1980), pp. 1333-94. St.venich ·Ba~ E., /sraels Konfrontation mit den letztcn BoU'n der Weisheit: fo m·1, Funktion und l nt.erdepende-nz der Weisheitselemente in der Logitnqutllt (Miinsteraner theologische Abhandlungen, 21; Altenberge: Oros, 1993). Shapiro, H.A., 'Heros Theos: The Death and Apotheosis of Herakles', Classical World 77 (1983), pp. 7-18. Siegert, F. (ed. and trans.), Dui hellenistiscb·iiidische Prtdigten (W\TNT, 20; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980). Skehan, P.W., and A.A. Di Lelia, The Wisdom of Ben SiTa: A New Translation with Notes (AB, 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987). Skurseh, 0. (ed.), The Annals of Q. Ennius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985). Smid, H., Protevangelium jacobi: A Commentary (Ap-ocrypha Novi Testamenri, 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 196$). Speiser, E.A. (trans.), 'The Epic of Cilgamesh', in Pritchard (ed.), ANET, pp. 72- 99. Spiro, A., 'The Ascension of Phinehas', PAAjR 22 (1953), pp. .91- 1!4. Spittler, R.P. (trans.), 'Testament of Job', in Charlesworth (ed.), OTP, pp. 1.829-<>8. Stanton, V.H., The Gospels as Hisrorical Documents: Vol. 2, The Synoptic Gospel. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer•ity Press, 1909). Stanton, G.N., 'On the Cbristology of Q', in B. Lindars and S.S. Smalley (eds.), Chrisr and Spirit. in the New Testament (Festschrift C.F.D. Moule; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 27-42. Stead, F.H., 'Does the Original Collection of Logia (•Q•) Contain Prediction of Our Lord's Resurrection?• Expositor 8!22 (1921), pp. 397-400.
Bibliography
189
Sceck, O.H. , Israel und das gewaltsame Gescbick dtr Propheten: Untersudnmgen ZIIT Oberlie{erung d.s deuteronomischen Geschichtbild.s im tllten Testament, Spiitjudentum und Urchris~ntum (WMANT, 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neultirchener Verlag, 1967). Stein, R.H., 'A Short Not< on Mark XIV.28 and XVI.7', NTS 20 (1974), pp. 445- 52. Stirling, G.E., 'Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke', HTR 94 (2001), pp. 38.l402. Stone, M.E., 'Coherence aitd Inconsistency in the Apocalypses: The Case of "The End" in 4 Eua',]BL 102 {1983), pp. 229-43. -Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermencia.; Minneapolis: Fonms, 1990). Stra uss, D.F., A New Life of jesus (2 vols.; london: Williams & Norgatc, lnd edn, 1879). Streeter, B. H., •The Original Extent of Q', in Sanday (ed.), Studies in tht Synoptic Problem, pp. 184-208. --'The Literaty Evolution of the Gospels", in Sanday (ed.), Studies in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 209-27. - -The four Gospels: A Study of Origins (london: Macmillan, 1924). St(obcl, A.• Untersuchungen zum e.schatologiscJum VerzOgerungsproblem: auf Grund der spiitjudiseh·uuhrist/ichen Gesity Press, 1~70). Tabor, J.D., Things Unutterable: Paul's Ascet1t to Heaven in Its GrtcoRoman. Judaic, and Early ChrisUan Contexts (Studies in judaism; Lanham, MD: Unive.rsiry Press of Americat 1986). - -'"Returning to the Divinity": josephus's Portrayal of the Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses',JBL 108 (19891, pp. 225-38. Talbert, C.H., 'The Concept of Jmmorta1s in Mediterranean Antiquity', }BL 94 {1975), pp. 419-36. Taussig, H., 2nd F..A. Ca•telli (eds.), R
190
Bibliograp!')•
Trypanis, C.A. (ed. and t rans.), Callimachu.s: Aetia, lambi, Lyric Poems (LCL; Camb
Q {Anoales Acadc:miae Sdcnriarom fc:nokae, Dissertationes Humanarultl Litterarum, 47; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedea.karemia, 1987}. 'jcesus-Hikc: ja yl6snousemus•, in ]eesus-liikkeestii kristinuskolui (Helsinki: Yliopi
Carolina Press, 1995). Van det Kwaak, H., 'Die Klage Uber Jerusalem (Matth. XXDI 37-39}', NovT 8 ( 1966), pp. 156-70. Van £$broeck, M ., Aux origines de Ia Dormition de Ia Vierge: it.udes histo· riques sur les traditions orientales (CoUe<:rcd Studies, 472; Brookfield, vr: Variorum, 1995). Van Segbroeck, .F~ C.M. Tuckett, G . Van Belle, and ]. Verheyden (eds.), Tl>e Four Gospels 1992 (Festschrift Frans Neiryock; BETL, 100; 3 vols.;
Lcuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1992). Van Tilborg, S.,and P. Chatelion Coun.r,Jesus' APJ>N~ranusand Disappearanas in Luke 24 (Biblicallnterprmtion Sedes, 45; Leideo: Brill, 2000}. Vassiliadis, P., 'The Nature and Extent of the Q Document', NovT20 (1978}, pp. 49- 73. -'The Original Ordec of Q: Some Residual Cases', in Delobel (ed.), Logia, pp. 379-87.
Bibliography
191
Verheyden, j., 'The Conclusion of Q: Eschato logy in Q 22,.2 8·30', in Lindemann (ed.), The Sayinrs Source Q and the Hiswrical Jesus, pp. 695-718. ·The Killing of the Prophets in Q and the Deuteronomistic Tradition: Some Reflexions' (unpublished paper presemed at the Sociery of Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 2002). Verilhac, A.-M., TTA/t.EI AflPOI: Poesie funiraire (nPAfMATEIAI THI AKAt.HMIAI AeHNON, 41 ; 2 vols.; Athens: fPAE/ON t.HMOIIEYMATON THI AKAt.HM/AI A6HNON, 1978-1982). VQgtlc~ A., ·ocr Spruch vom jonasz.eichen', in Das Evangtlium und d ie £ vangelien: BtitrOge ZMr E.vangelien{orschung (DUsseldorf: Patmos, 1971), pp. 103-36. Warmington, E.H. (ed. and trans.), Remains of Old Latin (LCL; 4 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ the New Tesl4ment (trans. A.JK. Davidson; 2 vot..; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1887-89). Wcllhausen, J., Einltitung in die ersten drtti Evangelien (Berlin: Georg Reimer, 2nd edn, 1911). Wilcktns, U., 'Der Ursprung der Oberlieferung der Erscheinungen des Auferstanden: Zu_r tr<Jdicions-geschichtJichm Analyse von 1 Co 15,1-11 ',in W. Joest and W. Pannenberg (eds.), Doi{"'I und DenkJrrukturen {Festschrift E. Schlink; GOttiogen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), pp. 56-95. - 'Jesusiiberlieferung und Chrisruskerygma: zwei Wege orchristlicher Oher· lieferungsgeschichte', Theologia Viatorum 10 (1965-66), pp. 310-39. - 'The Tradjtion··History of the Resurrection of jesus\ ln C.F.D. Moule (ed.), The Si/{Tiificance of the Resurrection for Faith in jesus Christ (SBT, 218; London: SCM, 1968), pp. 51-76. Wilmart, A., and E. Tisscrant (eds.}, 'Fragments Grecs et Latins de J•£vangile de Barthelemy', RB 10 (1913), pp. 161- 90, 321-68. Winston, D., The Wisdt>m of Solomon (AB, 43; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979). Wintermute, O.S. (trans.), 'Apocalypse of Elijah', in Charlesworth (ed.), OTP, pp. 2. 721- 53. Wintermute, O.S. (tra ns.), 'Jubilees', in Charleswo rth (ed.), OTP, pp. 2.35- 142. Wright, N.T., Christian Origins and the Question of God: Vol. I. The New T.stament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Forore,., 1992). - -'Resurrection in Q?', in Horrell and Tuckett (cds. ), Cbristology, Controversy and Community, pp. 85- 97. Wright W. (ed. and trans.), Contributions to the Apocryphal Li<erature of th< New Testament (London: Williams & Norgate, 1865). Zdle~ D., Kommenl4r ""' Logienquelle (SKKNT, 21; Stuttgart: Kaoholisches Bibelwerk, 1984).
192
Bibliography
--'Entriickung zur Ankun ft als Menschensohn (Lk 13, 34f.; 11, 29f.)', in A Cause de I'Evangue: Etudes sur ks Synoptiques et /es Actes (Festschrift J. Dupont; LD, 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985), pp. 513-30. 'Jesus, Q und die Zukunft lsraels', in A. Lindemann (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the His
·Assumptus est in caelum: Rapture and Hea\'enly Exaltation in E.arly
judaism and Luke-Acts', in F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (cds.), Aufnsuhung - R.eturret.tion: The Four-th Durham·TU-bingen Re$~4rt:h Symposium (Tubingen: Mo hr Siebeck, 2001), pp. 323-49.
Lambrecht, J. 135 Laufen, R. 112 Liebermann, S. 72 Undars, B. 27, 111, 154 17 Lohfink, G. 49-51, 53-58, 62, 66-<>8, 72, 74-76, 80, 82-83, 86-89, 151, !53, 156-<>0, 163
Lips, H. von
Index of Modern A11!hors Lohmeyer, E. 151, 154, 164 Longenecker, R.N. 20 Ludemann, G. 161, 16~5 Liihrmann, D. 16, 18, 26, 32, 45, 69, 126,128,139,144 Luz, U. 138
Vaage, L.E. 5, 25, 26 Van dec Kwaak, H. 33, 34, 36-37, 96, 11 6 Van Esbroec:k, M. 90 Van T ilborg, S. 61, 86-87, 163 VanderKam, j.C. 68, 71 - 73, 133 Vassiliadis, P. 32, 124 Verheyden, J. 16, 99, 1.39 Yerilhac, A.-M. 6~5 Vogde, A. 143
Weinert, F.D. 95 WeiB, B. 6 Wellhausen, J. 8-9 Whitaker, G.H. 76 Wilckeno, U. 10, 165 Wilmarc, A !57 Winston, D. 82-83 Wintccmucc, O.S. 71, 78 Wright, N.T. 7, 22, 144 Wright, W. 91 Zeller, D. 2, 11, 33, 36, 40, 43-44, 46-47,66,74, 110-12, 116-17, 120, 123, 139-40, 143-46, 149, 168 Zwicp, A. W. 49- 50, 53- 55, 66, 68~9. 71-74, 76-78, 80-82, 86-87, 89, 116, 153-54, 157,
![The Four in One Gospel of Jesus [2018 Edition]](https://epdf.mx/img/300x300/the-four-in-one-gospel-of-jesus-2018-edition_5b950389b7d7bcc8641c9fc1.jpg)
