The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q

LffiRARY OF N EW TESTAMEN T STUDIES

338

Editor Mark Goodacre Editorial Board John M.G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Karhleet~ E. Corley, R. Alan CuiJlel: 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«> 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.on' W>Os 'absohJtcly bounded by Galilee', and which bad no 'clearly discernible bias, whether apologetic, didactic, e;ng•m Molu Siebdt, 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 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~ reriMmt1114,., 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-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, 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. 6riented '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.

8n of jesus in tht Sayings Gospel Q

not resurrc: ('the oldest Gre«k t· 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.aOts' 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. Psybou< of l.ib a~cx~av ricSrJ W1TTo~iuJa

1Tapieu ot~a•«
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.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--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 Gracel: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 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 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 logSd: 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$1eS' being 'ulu:n away' (irYa}.a:IJ~a~\1011'): 'one who {Wfllf) with the angels, and the other who was deigned wonhy tO be buried in the ravines' (era... Tromp, .w.mptio• of Moses, p. 283). 163. Oo latt.r sourca.. seeK. Hucker and P. Scb.iftt, "Nachbibliscbe Traditiooco vom Tod des Mosco', ;n 0 . Bet>, et a.l . (eho.s·Shulie.ttJnonomy (cd. H. Frudm~n :and M. Simon; london: So!)cino, 1974). ~also Sifrc 355; Tg. Ps.•). Oeut. 33.21; 'At· B~:r. 67 (cited by Zwicp, ~ir.m~ p. ?0 n. 4). 177. AW1Ct RQ.otlation, p. 2.61.0. 61.-dc thought Rev. 11.3-13 is 'almost certainly a Chrisrianiud \'et~ion of a still older jtwish Autichrisc myth' ('Two Witnc:$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

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 Phins 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 :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.. Ll>liM, 11.....1{4/,n. pp. 69-10. LftMI< dioOl,.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.I.oiioa TOUS '

...

.

,

iutOOTOA~tvoos to'

' • •E'PQUOS;. (39) ! ' • ... • ' "" • • • .. ... • UIJc.lV . '\MYc.l XQ:A UIJ(V, ou IJTI UA tol'JT! Qtr apTI l(o)S f:l.V. t t m}Tt' tU~oyruJivos 0 tpxOl-ltVOS' Ev Ov61Jo--r1 KVplou. Lk. 13.34·3S (H) "l•pouoal-1\~' ltpouoaM~.

1\ 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
,,

•• '/ 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, ShAi•

u .... ~

coordiAanns

M

QU..SJ

S.lf O.,fl,. >.4'fC.IGOI

11.$9 110!

.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

14,1ing 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. Kloppeobrg, 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 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.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 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 rurr«: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
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 dtiay
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 Lrd 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
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, diSealtation 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:tweWrr 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/ogin', 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 VindiIJ•r.u. n. I'. S.. jocoboon, First Gosp.l, p. 248; R. Honley, 'Social Conlli· 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 OVrate 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$h1 by the presence of ~this generation• in the saying or its contexL Zeller also observed thar v. 29 is a judgmenr saying> with both an •accusation? and a "threat'; t he th reat is developed in v. 30. Since 'thisgeneration> is both criticized for demanding. a sign, and then told it would be given one as an exception, Zeller argued that 'the s ign that legitimates Jesus signifies judgment for the 11evil generation"'. 121 The sign_1 [hen, is the Son of man himself ooming in eschatological judgment. The form-critical observation is ,.aJid, as is the: implication that the 'sign' h:u to do with j udgment -but only on chc grounds that Jonah and jesus both proclaimed an imminent judgment; it does not follow rhnt the Son of man was to become a sign to 'this gcneratioo' at his eKhatological manife.natlon as judge. This '·iew must dep< ""'p/H<J: Grtd Tal .-1 T...,.t.rt;o. (S!l.MS. 1; Pbibddpt.;s, Soci«r of Biblical U1.o1s a$ 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 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 1fink, 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!vappeara 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 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-ulO$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 Infangie 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 dam 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
Mekhilta, Pisha 1.80-2 148 103-05 148

Alexandria. Str