¹ Schweitzer, Albert, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: Eine Geschichte der Leben-Jesu-Forschung (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1906)Google Scholar; ET: The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of Its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede (3d ed.; trans. Montgomery, W.; London: A. & C. Black, 1954Google Scholar; reprinted with an Introduction by Robinson, James M.; New York: Macmillan, 1968).Google Scholar

² von Harnack, Adolf, Sprüche und Reden Jesu: Die zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas (Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Neue Testament 2; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1907)Google Scholar; ET: The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke (trans. Wilkinson, J. R.; New Testament Studies 2; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam's, 1908) esp. 250–51.Google Scholar

³ Bultmann, Rudolf K., Theology of the New Testament (trans. Grobel, Kendrick; 2 vols.; New York: Scribner's, 1951–1955) 1. 4–5, 42.Google Scholar

⁴ For a recent discussion, see Borg, Marcus, “A Temperate Case of a Non-Eschatological Jesus,” Foundations and Facets Forum 2/3 (1986) 81–102.Google Scholar

⁵ Vielhauer, Philipp, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkündigung Jesu,” in idem, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (ThBü 31; Munich: Kaiser, 1965) 55–91Google Scholar; idem, “Jesus und der Menschensohn.” ibid., 92–140.

⁶ Käsemann, Ernst, “The Beginnings of Christian Theology,” in idem. New Testament Questions of Today (trans. Montague, W. J.; London: SCM, 1969) 101–2.Google Scholar See also idem, “On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” ibid., 108–37.

⁷ Howard Clark Kee holds that only 11 of the 52 units of tradition in Q are not explicitly eschatological, and even these are compatible with an eschatological outlook (“Wisdom Tradition and Christology in Q” [paper presented to the Q Consultation at the One Hundred Twentieth Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, Chicago, 8–11 December 1984]). This division of Q is based on his analysis in Jesus in History: An Approach to the Study of the Gospels (2d ed.; New York/Chicago/San Francisco: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1977) 84–87.Google Scholar In the first edition of Jesus in History (1970), Kee divided Q into 41 units, of which only three (Q 11:34–36; 16:13: 17:3–6) were “purely didactic” (71). In the later works, there is no indication as to which 11 pericopes are noneschatological, although presumably the three above mentioned and 7:1–10 are to be included.

⁸ Schulz, Siegfried, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972) 168.Google Scholar My translation.

⁹ Schulz (Spruchquelle, 33–34) points out that most of the Matthean texts upon which Käsemann built his thesis are in fact Q texts. Q 10:23–24; 6:22–23; 12:11–12 reflect prophetic enthusiasm; Q 12:8–9 and 12:10 are sentences of holy law; the eschatological future appears in sentences such as Q 10:12, 13–15; 11:31–32; apocalyptically interpreted sayings occur at Q 6:37; 14:11; 12:2–3; 17:33, and Q has several apocalyptic blessings and curses (6:20–23; 10:13–15; 13:26–27, 28–29). I have converted all of Käsemann's and Schulz's Matthean citations into Q [= Lukan] versification.

¹⁰ Perrin, Norman and Duling, Dennis C., The New Testament: An Introduction (2d ed.; New York/Chicago/San Francisco: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1982) 73–79Google Scholar, 100–7 (quotation, p. 75).

¹¹ Ibid., 106–7.

¹² Edwards, Richard A., “An Approach to a Theology of Q.” JR 51 (1971) 247–69Google Scholar; idem, A Theology of Q: Eschatology. Prophecy, and Wisdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976).Google Scholar

¹³ Carlston, Charles E.. “Wisdom and Eschatology in Q,” in Delobel, Joël, ed., Logia: Les paroles de Jésus—The Sayings of Jesus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens (BETL 59; Leuven: Peeters and Leuven University Press, 1982) 101–19Google Scholar (quotation, p. 112). The significance of sapiential elements for the assessment of the genre of Q was already identified by James M. Robinson in his 1964 essay, ”LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q,” now in idem and Koester, Helmut, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971) 71–113.Google Scholar Robinson's insights have been carried further by the present author in The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Fichtner, Johannes, “Die Stellung der Sapientia Salomonis in der Literatur- und Geistesgeschichte ihrer Zeit,” ZNW 36 (1937) 113–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁵ See Winston, David, The Wisdom of Solomon (AB 43; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979) 147Google Scholar; Collins, John J., The Apocalyptic Vision of the Book of Daniel (HSM 16; Missoula: Scholars Press. 1977) 210–12.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See Reese, James M., Hellenistic Influence on the Book of Wisdom and Its Consequences (AnBib 41: Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1970) 62–71.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Müller, Hans-Peter, “Mantische Weisheit und Apokalyptik.” Congress Volume. Uppsala (VTSup 22; Leiden: Brill,. 1972) 268–93.Google Scholar

¹⁸ See Koester, Helmut, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” HTR 78 (1980) 112–14Google Scholar; Heinz Schümann, “Beobachtungen zum Menschensohn-Titel in der Redequelle,” in Pesch, Rudolf and Schnackenburg, Rudolf, eds., Jesus und der Menschensohn: Für Anton Vögtle (Freiburg/ Basel/Vienna: Herder & Herder, 1975) 124–47Google Scholar; reprinted Gottesreich—Jesu Geschick: Jesu ureigener Tod im Lichl seiner Basileia-Verkündigung (Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder & Herder, 1983) 153–82.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Tödt, Heinz Eduard, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Barton, D. M.; London: SCM, 1965) 269.Google Scholar

²⁰ For a discussion of the formative components of Q, see Kloppenborg, John S.. “The Formation of Q and Antique Instructional Genres,” JBL 105 (1986) 443–62.Google Scholar

²¹ Similarly Edwards, “Approach,” 259, 261; Carlston, “Wisdom and Eschatology,” 112–13; Crossan, John Dominic, In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983) 129–30.Google Scholar

²² With Hamack (Sayings of Jesus, 83), Frans Neirynck (“Recent Developments in the Study of Q,” Logia [see n. 13]), and others, I reconstruct Q following Matt 10:27.

²¹ Betz, Hans Dieter, “Eschatology in the Sermon on the Mount and the Sermon on the Plain,” SBLASP 24 (1985) 343–50.Google Scholar

²⁴ Betz himself evidently assumes a rather complex relationship between the two sermons and Q since he argues that both were discrete pre-Synoptic (and presumably, pre-Q) compositions.

²⁵ See Kloppenborg, John S., “Blessing and Marginality: The ‘Persecution Beatitude’ in Q, Thomas and Early Christian Tradition,” Foundations and Facets Forum 2/3 (1986) 36–56.Google Scholar

²⁶ Betz, “Eschatology,” 350.

²⁷ See Wilder, Amos Niven, “The Symbolic Realism of Jesus' Language,” in idem, Jesus' Parables and the War of Myths: Essays on Imagination in the Scriptures (ed. Breech, James; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982) 133–52.Google Scholar

²⁸ See the excellent formal analysis of this cluster of sayings by Ronald A. Piper, “Matthew 7,7–11 Par. Luke 11,9–13: Evidence of Design and Argument in the Collection of Jesus' Sayings,” Logia [see n. 13] 411–18.

²⁹ Some of the components of Q 11: 2–4, 9–13 may have been transmitted by and for itinerant preachers who depended absolutely upon providential provision. The present composition, with its petition concerning forgiveness and its catechetical flavor is consistent with an ecclesial Sitz. See Schürmann, “Das Zeugnis der Redenquelle für die Basileia-Verkündigung Jesu,” Logia [see n. 13] 151.

³⁰ See Jeremias, Joachim, New Testament Theology, vol 1: The Proclamation of Jesus (trans. Bowden, John; London: SCM, 1971) 33Google Scholar, and cf. Prov 8:32–35; Sir 6: 27–28; 51:28; Wis 6:12.

³¹ See Fiorenza, Elisabeth Schüssler, “The Phenomenon of Early Christian Apocalyptic: Some Reflections on Method,” in Hellholm, David, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East (Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1983) 295–316.Google Scholar

³² Smith, Jonathan Z., “A Pearl of Great Price and a Cargo of Yams: A Study in Situational Incongruity,” HR 16 (1976) 1–19Google Scholar (quotation, p. 8); similarly, Collins, John J., “Cosmos and Salvation: Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Hellenistic Age,” HR 17 (1977) 121–42Google Scholar; Hanson, Paul D., “Apocalypticism,” IDBSup (1916) 28–34.Google Scholar

³³ Wilder, “Apocalyptic Rhetorics,” Jesus' Parables and the War of Myths, 153–68 (quotation, p. 157).

³⁴ See George W. E. Nickelsburg, “Social Aspects of Palestinian Jewish Apocalypticism,” in Hellholm (ed.). Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World, 641–54; Collins, John J., “The Symbolism of Transcendence in Jewish Apocalyptic,” BR 19 (1974) 8.Google Scholar

³⁵ See Berger, Peter L., The Sacred Canopy: Elements of a Sociological Theory of Religion (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1969) 70–71.Google Scholar

³⁶ Collins, John J., The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1984) 32.Google Scholar See also Hellholm, David, “The Problem of Apocalyptic Genre and the Apocalypse of John,” SBLASP 21 (1982) 166–68.Google Scholar

³⁷ On this see Jacobson, Arland D., “Wisdom Christology in Q” (Ph.D. diss., Claremont Graduate School, 1978)Google Scholar; idem, “The Literary Unity of Q,” JBL 101 (1982) 365–89.Google Scholar

³⁸ VanderKam, James C., Enoch and the Growth of an Apocalyptic Tradition (CBQMS 16; Washington, DC: Catholic Biblical Association, 1984) 119.Google Scholar

³⁹ Betz, Hans Dieter, “On the Problem of the Religio-Historical Understanding of Apocalypticism,” JTC 6 (1969) 148.Google Scholar The quotation is from Jonas, Hans, Gnosis und spätantiker Geist. 1. Die mythologische Gnosis (3d ed.; FRLANT 51; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1964) 199.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Nickelsburg, George W. E., “Apocalyptic and Myth in 1 Enoch 6–11.” JBL 96 (1977) 383–405.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Betz, “Apocalypticism,” 148. Betz demonstrates the linkages between I Enoch, Revelation, and the Hermetic Kore Kosmou.

⁴² See Nickelsburg, “Apocalyptic and Myth,” 390–91; Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 36–46.

⁴³ See Robinson, James M., The Problem of History in Mark (SBT 1/21; London: SCM, 1975) 21–32.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ For a detailed exposition of this interpretation, see Zeller, Dieter, “Die Versuchungen Jesu in der Logienquelle,” TThZ 89 (1980) 61–73Google Scholar; Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 246–62.

⁴⁵ See Schürmann, Das Lukasevangelium (HThKNT 3/1; Freiburg/Basel/Vienna: Herder & Herder, 1969) 1. 211,219.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Hengel, Martin, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (trans. Grieg, J.; New York: Crossroad, 1981) 13.Google Scholar Similarly, Zeller, Dieter, Kommentar zur Logienquelle (Stuttgarter kleiner Kommentar, Neues Testament 21; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984) 74.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ See Collins, John J., “The Jewish Apocalypses,” Semeia 14 (1979) 28Google Scholar, and the summaries on pp. 29–49. In early Christian apocalypses, though some form of belief in the afterlife is constant, the motif of cosmic transformation is considerably less frequent than that of the judgment of the wicked/world. See Collins, Adela Yarbro, “The Early Christian Apocalypses,” Semeia 14 (1979) 104–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Elsewhere I have argued that the core of Did. 16.2–8 is pre-Matthean and in fact a source for Matthew 24; see Kloppenborg, John S., “Didache 16:6–8 and Special Matthean Tradition,” ZNW 70 (1979) 54–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Because of the abruptness of the ending of Did. 16.8 and paleographic peculiarities, Jean-Paul Audet has argued that the Bryennios manuscript (Hierosolymitanus 54) is incomplete (La Didachè. Instructions des apôtres [EtBib; Paris: Gabalda, 1958] 73–74).Google Scholar Both the Apostolic Constitutions 7.32 and the Georgian version of the Didache have longer endings mentioning reward and punishment according to one's deeds. See Peradse, G., “Die Lehre der zwölf Apostel in der georgischen Überlieferung,” ZNW 31 (1932) 111–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁹ Dieter Lührmann rightly regards 12:8–9 not simply as a warning against apostasy, but as an oracle directed at those who hear the message of the preachers exhorted in 12:2–7, 11–12 (Die Redaktion der Logienquelle [WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969] 52).Google Scholar Nonresponse to preaching is probably also the cause for exclusion in 13:28–29, esp. given the context of 13:26–27 + 13:34–35 + 14:16–24.

⁵⁰ Conzelmann, Hans, An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament (trans. Bowden, John; London: SCM, 1969) 135.Google Scholar Similarly Grässer, Erich, Das Problem der Parusieverzögerung in den synoptischen Evangelien und in der Apostelgeschichte (BZNW 33; 3d ed.; Berlin: De Gruyter, 1977) 170Google Scholar; Schulz, Spruchquelle, 277. Schenk, Wolfgang (Synopse zur Redenquelle der Evangelisten [Düsseldorf: Patmos, 1981] 120)Google Scholar calls this section “Die zweite und abschliessende Endzeitrede” (the first being Q 12:39–13:21). I have used Conzelmann's designation in my Formation of Q (see n. 13).

⁵¹ Ἐν ⋯κείνῃ τῇ ⋯μέρᾳ in Luke 17:31 is Lukan, used to connect the Q material with Mark 13:15–16. See Rudolf Schnackenburg, “Der eschatologische Abschnitt Lukas 17, 20–37,” in idem, Schriften zum Neuen Testament (Munich: Kösel, 1971) 231Google Scholar; Zmijewski, Josef, Die Eschatologiereden des Lukas-Evangeliums (BBB 40; Bonn: Hanstein, 1972) 473–78.Google ScholarΤότε in Matt 24:40 is likewise redactional. Ταύτῃ τῇ νυκτί in Luke 17:34 may be redactional (cf. 12:20) but even if it does belong to Q (thus Schnackenburg, “Der eschatologische Abschnitt,” 233; Strobel, A., “In dieser Nacht (Luk 17:34): Zu einer älteren Form der Erwartung in Lk 17,20–37,” ZThK 58 [1961] 20)Google Scholar, it serves only to attach this saying to 17:26–27 (28–30) rather than to imply a narrative sequence.

⁵² There is disagreement between Matthew and Luke in the relative placement of Q 17:37. Tödt plausibly suggests (Son of Man, 38) that Luke moved 17:37b to eliminate the infelicitous association of the Son of Man with the image of carrion-eating birds. Luke 17:33 does not belong to the context of Q 17:23–37 at all but instead comes from a cluster of discipleship sayings in Matt 10:37–39/Luke 14:26–27; 17:33. See on this Laufen, Rudolf,Die Doppelüberlieferung der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums (BBB 54; Bonn: Hanstein, 1980) 318–20.Google Scholar

⁵³ See Kelber, Werner H., The Kingdom in Mark (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 113–16.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ An interesting parallel to the eschatological correlative in 17:24 occurs in 4QpsDan A^a [= 4Q 246]: “As comets (flash) to sight, so shall be their kingdom.” See Joseph A. Fitzmyer, “The Contribution of Qumran Aramaic to the Study of the New Testament,” in idem, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (SBLMS 25; Missoula: Scholars Press, 1979) 93.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ See the discussion of this problem in Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 452–57.

⁵⁶ Sir 16:7–8; Jub. 20.5–6; T. Naph. 3.4–5; 3 Macc 2.4–5; Wis 10:4, 6; Philo De vit. Mos. 2.52–65; 2 Pet 2:4–10; I Clement 9–12; Apostolic Constitutions 8.12.22. See Lührmann's discussion of these in Redaktion, 78–83, and idem, “Noah und Lot (Lk 17 26–29)—ein Nachtrag,” ZNW 63 (1972) 130–32.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Luke's δύο ⋯π⋯ κλίνης μι⋯ς (17:34) probably refers to two males (⋯ εἷς … ⋯ ἓτερος) at table.

⁵⁸ See Schulz, Spruchquelle, 285. For a discussion of this image, see Plevnik, Joseph, “The Taking Up of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead in 1 Thessalonians 4:13–18,” CBQ 46 (1984) 274–83.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Thus Zeller, Kommentar, 91; Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 501.

⁶⁰ Hartman, Lars, “The Function of Some So-Called Apocalyptic Timetables,” NTS 22 (1975–1976) 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar; see also idem, “Survey of the Problem of Apocalyptic Genre,” in Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World, 334–35.

⁶¹ Schnackenburg, “Der eschatologische Abschnitt,” 237. Similarly Zmijewski, Eschatologiereden, 524.

⁶² Wilder, Amos N., Eschatology and Ethics in the Teaching of Jesus (New York/London: Harper & Bros., 1939) 39–40, 51.Google Scholar

⁶³ Ibid., 47.

⁶⁴ See Turner, Victor, “Metaphors of Antistructure in Religious Culture,” in idem, Dramas, Fields, and Metaphors: Symbolic Action in Human Society (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1974) 272–99Google Scholar; idem, “Comments and Conclusions,” in idem, The Reversible World: Symbolic Inversion in Art and Society (ed. Babcock, B.; Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1978) 276–96.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Hans Dieter Betz has observed that descriptions of netherworld experiences such as the Myth of Er (Plato Republic 614a–621d) or the netherworld tour of Thespesius (Plutarch De sera num. 563d–568a) motivate moral conversion by subjecting the soul to a shock-like fear. Though Q lacks a vision or tour of the netherworld, the spectres of sudden destruction likewise serve to reorient the hearer to the ethics which Q puts in place of everyday values (“The Problems of Apocalyptic Genre in Greek and Hellenistic Literature: The Case of the Oracle of Trophonius,” in Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World, 594–95).

⁶⁶ Wayne A. Meeks suggests a similar function for apocalyptic language in 1 Thessalonians (“Social Functions of Apocalyptic Language in Pauline Christianity,” in Hellholm, ed., Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World, 687–705).

⁶⁷ Lührmann, Redaktion, 87–88.