Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
1997.
Das biographische Ich-Idiom »Menschensohn« in den frühen Jesus-Biographien.
p.
232.
Article contents
The Beginning of Q: A Proposal
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
Extract
Recent discussion of the genre of Q suggests that a consensus is not yet emerging. On the one hand there is the view of John Kloppenborg that the stages in the development of Q were, firstly, the assembling of a number of wisdom speeches followed by, secondly, an expansion by various groups of sayings, many formed as chriae, and then, thirdly, a move in the direction of a bios by means of an historicizing tendency and the addition of the temptation story (Q 4.1–13).1 Within this approach traditions which seem prima facie to exhibit prophetic form or content are strictly subordinated to, or at least controlled by, their setting in a wisdom collection. That is, the wisdom Makrogattung determines how any prophetic Mikrogattungen are to be viewed. On the other hand there is the view of Migaku Sato that Q should be compared with prophetic books, and that it grew in several redactional stages, each of which was informed by the prophetic tradition and conditioned by prophetic mission.2 On this view the prophetic Makrogattung determines how any sapiential Mikrogattungen are to be viewed.
- Type
- Articles
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1992
References
1 The Formation of Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 317–28.Google Scholar
2 Q und Prophetie (WUNT 2/29; Mohr, 1988) 406–11.Google Scholar
3 Formation, 84–5, 102. In his discussion of the genres of instruction, chriae collection and biography, Kloppenborg, 262–316, collects much evidence of how titles, prologues and narrative introductions occur as means of legitimation of the speaker. This is the role he assigns to Q 4.1–13. But that only makes all the more noticeable the presence of 3.7–9, 16–17 as a tradition positioned before 4.1–13 and concerned not with Jesus but with John.
4 See his review in CBQ 52 (1990) 362–4.Google Scholar
5 The presence of 3.2–4 is ‘möglich aber unsicher’, Prophetie, 21, and often appears as ‘3.2–4/6?’ access to ‘die Urgestalt des Anfangs der Quelle’ is no longer possible (p. 78). The presence of 3.21–2, however, is ‘nicht völlig sicher, aber wahrscheinlich’, and a basis for argument (pp. 21, 111).
6 Prophetie, 140–4.
7 Formation, 84–5.
8 Arndt, W. F. and Gingrich, F. W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (4th ed.; Cambridge: University, 1952) 534.Google Scholar
9 Prophetie, 226–46.
10 Dibelius, M., Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer (FRLANT 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1915) 10.Google Scholar
11 Ernst, J., Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Regensburg: Pustet, 1977) 249–50.Google Scholar
12 Hoffmann, P., Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (2nd ed.; M¨nster: Aschen-dorff: 1972) 217Google Scholar; Schürmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium 1 (HTKNT 3/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1969) 416.Google Scholar
13 Thus Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 417: ‘V.26b verlangt nach eigenen Kommentierung.’ Similarly Kloppenborg, Formation, 109–10: ‘Q 7:26b requires further explication.’
14 Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 417, 419; Lührmann, D., Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1969) 1969Google Scholar; Schulz, S., Q. Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich: Theologischer, 1972) 232Google Scholar; Kloppenborg, Formation, 108–9.
15 Kloppenborg, Formation, 109.
16 Cf. Judg 2.16, 18; 3.9, 15; Isa 41.25; 45.13; Sir 10.4.
17 Cf. Matt 24.11, 24/Mark 13.22; Luke 1.69.
18 The persons ‘raised up’ may be for the benefit of Israel, as in the texts cited above, or for judgment upon Israel, cf. 1 Kings 11.14, 23; Isa 10.26; Jer 50.9; Josephus Ant. 8.199.
19 The use of ἐγείρειν is unlikely to have been provoked by Mark 6.16, as proposed by Goulder, M. D., Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974) 356Google Scholar, in view of the quite different sense.
20 Cf. Job 11.12; 14.1; 15.14; Sir 10.18; 1QH 13.13–14; 18.10–13, 23; b. Shabb. 88b.
21 Vielhauer, P., Art. ‘Johannes der Täufer’, RGG 3, 807Google Scholar; Becker, J., Johannes der Täufer und Jesus von Nazareth (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1972) 12, 15Google Scholar; Hoffmann, Studien, 223.
22 Hahn, F., The Titles of Jesus in Christology (London: Lutterworth, 1969) 366–7.Google Scholar
23 Cf. Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 418; Lührmann, Redaktion, 28; Schulz, Spruch-quelle, 232.
24 Some confirmation of this analysis is probably to be found in Matt 21.32/Luke 7.29–30. Doubtless this material has been substantially redacted into its present forms, but the overlap between the two versions supports the presence of an original Q narrative conclusion at this point (rightly, Schneider, G., Das Evangelium nach Lukas 1–10 (Gutersloh: Mohn, 1984) 172Google Scholar; otherwise, Sato, Prophetie, 20, 55), a conclusion which presupposes a highly favourable estimate of John's work and lacks all awareness of any declaration about the even higher status of Jesus.
25 Thus, Stendahl, K., The School of Saint Matthew (2nd ed.; Lund: 1967) 50.Google Scholar
26 Kloppenborg, Formation, 108–10; Sato, Prophetie, 35–6.
27 Vielhauer, P., ‘Das Benedictus des Zacharias’, ZTK 49 (1952) 255–72Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel according to Luke I-IX (AB 28; 2nd ed.; New York: Doubleday, 1983) 316–21.Google Scholar
28 Sato, Prophetie, 371–2.
29 Dibelius, F., ‘Zwei Worte Jesu’, ZNW 11 (1910) 188–92, esp. 191CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Polag, A., Die Christologie der Logienquelle (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1977) 159.Google Scholar
30 Dibelius, ‘Worte’, 190. Note that the introduction of the scheme used in John 3.3, 5 is alien to this particular context (rightly Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 419).
31 The serious problem involved in such an interpretation is widely recognized, cf. Schürmann, Lukasevangelium, 419; Ernst, Lukas, 249; Polag, Christologie, 159.
32 See Sato, Prophetie, 141.
33 See Dibelius, ‘Worte’, 191; Cullmann, O., ‘ὁ ὀπίσω μου ἐρχόμενος’, The Early Church (London: SCM, 1956) 177–82Google Scholar; Michel, O., ‘μικρός’, TDNT 4 (1967) 648–59, esp. 653–4Google Scholar; Hoffmann, Studien, 219–24. Otherwise, Hahn Titles, 367; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 233–4. The description of the disciple or taught one as μικρός in relation to the teacher is not without precedent (1 Chron 12.14, cf. the similar use of other diminutive terms for those needing instruction, 1 Kings 3.7; Q 10.21; Rom 2.20).
34 See Hoffmann, Studien, 223.
35 Sato, Prophetie, 383.
36 ‘Der Einfluss der Logienquelle auf das Markusevangelium’, ZNW 70 (1979) 141–65.Google Scholar
37 Sato, Prophetie, 384.
38 Goulder, M. D., ‘On Putting Q to the Test’, NTS 24 (1978) 218–34, esp. 224–5Google Scholar; Sanders, E. P. and Davies, M., Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM, 1989) 95–6.Google Scholar
39 Contra Scobie, C. H. H., John the Baptist (London: SCM, 1964) 66.Google Scholar
40 Hoffmann, Studien, 24: ‘Der Sitz im Leben für einen solchen Vergleich war erst in einer Situation gegeben, die Johannes und Jesus einander gegenüber stellte.’
41 Josh 23.9; Job 36.22; Qoh 6.10; Jer 1.18,19; 20.11.
42 2 Kings 22.48; Job 9.19; 22.13 (and with storm imagery in context: Job 35.7; Ps 7.2; Isa 28.2).
43 2 Chron 25.8; Isa 50.2; 59.1.
44 Hoffmann, Studien, 32–3. Kloppenborg, Formation, 104–5, opposes Hoffmann by deducing the great age of the saying from its widespread occurrence in Q, Mark, John 1.26 and Acts 13.25. But Mark's knowledge of Q, Luke's knowledge of Mark, and John's probable knowledge of both Mark and Luke would set the objection aside.
45 Hoffmann, Studien, 23–4.
46 An original Q version ἐν πνεύματι καì πυρί has the advantages of (i) respecting the lack of differentiation in ὑμᾶς between those experiencing judgment and those experiencing salvation; (ii) providing some basis within the tradition for Mark's πνεύματι ἁγίω; (iii) allowing a natural progression to the wind allusion in Q 3.17; and thus (iv) drawing upon traditional storm imagery for judgment, cf. Job 21.18; Isa 17.13; 33.11; Hos 13.3; Wis 5.22–23; 1QH 7.22–3.
47 The possibility that this derives from Q has been viewed sympathetically by a number of writers: Harnack, A., The Sayings of Jesus (London: Williams & Norgate, 1908) 41Google Scholar; Hoffmann, Studien, 17; Schweizer, E., The Good News according to Matthew (London: SPCK, 1976) 48Google Scholar; Luz, U., Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 1–7) (EKKNT 1/1; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1985) 143Google Scholar; G. Schneider, Lukas 1–10, 82.
48 Only in one detail does the reconstruction by Schulz, Spruchquelle, 366–7, perhaps need modification. Matthew's ‘Pharisees and Sadducees’ are certainly redactional, cf. Matt 16.1, 6, 12 diff Mark 8.11,15, but Luke's ὄχλοι may be pre-Lucan since it is more typical of Q, cf. 11.14, 29, and present in Q 7.24.
49 The Matt/Luke minor agreements exist, i.e. ἀνοίγειν diff σχίζειν; aorist participle of βαπτίζειν; the phrase ἐπ' αὐτόν. They are not sufficient in themselves as evidence of non-Marcan source material, but can play a small part in conjunction with other arguments. See Sato, Prophetie, 25–6.
50 ‘The Gospel Genre’, Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (ed. P. Stuhlmacher; WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr, 1983) 183–219, esp. 204–7.Google Scholar
51 Isaiah 40–66 (London: SCM, 1969) 37.Google Scholar
52 Horsley, R. A., ‘“Like One of the Prophets of Old”: Two Types of Popular Prophets at the Time of Jesus’, CBQ 47 (1985) 435–63Google Scholar. The wording ἐν τ ἐρήμῳ … ἐν τοΐς ταμείοις (Matt 24.26) is likely to be original: it reflects the situation before the war with Rome and is unlikely to have been added by MattR afterwards.
- 1
- Cited by