¹ See Chilton, Bruce and Evans, Craig A., eds., Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (NTTS 19; Leiden: Brill, 1994)Google Scholar ; Evans, Craig A., Life ofJesus Research: An Annotated Bibliography (NTTS 13; Leiden: Brill, 1989)Google Scholar ; and Borg, Marcus J., Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1994) 3–17Google Scholar.

² For a helpful beginning, see Georgi, Dieter, “The Interest in Life of Jesus Theology as a Paradigm for the Social History of Biblical Criticism,” HTR 85 (1992) 51–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³ On the history of the term “Sayings Gospel Q,” see Neirynck, Frans, “Q: From Source to Gospel,” EThL 71 (1995) 421-30.Google Scholar I cite texts from Q by their Lukan versification (for example, Q 3:7-9) in accordance with the convention of the SBL Q Seminar. This does not necessarily imply that Luke's wording is preferred to Matthew's.

⁴ Published as the seventh and final “fragment” in Reimarus, Samuel Hermann, Fragmente des Wolfenbuttelschen Ungenannten (ed. Lessing, Gotthold E.; Berlin: Sandersche Buchhandlung [C. M. Eichhoff], 1776-1778; 4th ed., 1835)Google Scholar cited by book and section number. See , Georgi, “Life of Jesus Theology,” esp. 75–77Google Scholar. Georgi has shown that part of the roots of the quest for the historical Jesus as a paradigmatic (even superhuman) person correlate with the rise of the burgher class in Europe in the eleventh and twelfth centuries.

⁵ Schweitzer's own statement that Reimarus “had no predecessors; neither did he have any disciples” was generally true of the nineteenth century, but Schweitzer himself was clearly indebted to Reimarus. See Schweitzer, Albert, Von Reimarus zu Wrede: eine Geschichte der Leben Jesu Forschung (Tubingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1906)Google Scholar ; , ET: The Quest of the Historical Jesus (trans. Montgomery, William; New York: Macmillan, 1910) 26.Google Scholar On the legacy of Reimarus, see Cameron, Ron, “The Anatomy of a Discourse: On ‘Eschatology’ as a Category for Explaining Christian Origins,” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 8 (1996) 231–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar , esp. 240.

⁶ , Reimarus, Fragmente, 1.7.Google Scholar

⁷ Ibid., 1.19.

⁸ Ibid., 2.8.

⁹ Ibid., 1.20.

¹⁰ Lessing, Gotthold E., “Neue Hypothese über die Evangelisten als bloss menschliche Geschichtsschreiber betrachtet,” Theologischer Nachlass (Berlin: Voss, 1784) (composed in 1778) 45–72Google Scholar ; , ET: “New Hypothesis Concerning the Evangelists Regarded as Merely Human Historians,” Lessing's Theological Writings (ed. Chadwick, Henry; London: Black, 1956) 65–81.Google Scholar

¹¹ Weisse, Christian Hermann, Die evangelische Geschichte: Kritisch und philosophisch bearbeitet (2 vols.; Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1838).Google Scholar

¹² Longstaff's, Thomas bibliography (The Synoptic Problem: A Bibliography 1716–1988 [New Gospel Studies 4; Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1988])Google Scholar lists 53 entries for these years.

¹³ Lang, Marijke H. de (“Gospel Synopses from the 16th to the 18th Centuries and the Rise of Literary Criticism of the Gospels,” in Focant, Camile, ed., The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and New Literary Criticism [BETL 110; Leuven: Peeters, 1993] 606)Google Scholar notes that Griesbach had Reimarus's critique in view when he praised those who affirmed the historical value of the resurrection appearance stories, which had formed the point of departure for Reimarus's critique. See Griesbach, Johann, Inquisitio in fontes, unde evangelistae suas de resurrectione Domini narrationes hauserint (Jena: Goepferdt, 1783).Google Scholar

¹⁴ For example, Weisse affirmed the presence of historical tradition in Mark (the earliest gospel), even though he did not think that Mark was an eyewitness or even that Mark had immediate contact with eyewitnesses (Die evangelische Geschichte, 1. 69).

¹⁵ Strauss, David Friedrich (Das Leben Jesu: Kritisch bearbeitet [2 vols.; Tübingen: Osiander, 1835-1836] §§ 5–6)Google Scholar begins his work with a discussion of the misunderstanding of myth by the Deists, including Reimarus, and devotes the remainder of the introduction (§§ 8-16) to a positive interpretation of myth.

¹⁶ The Tübingen school dated Matthew to ca. 130 CE. See Harris, Horton, The Tübingen School (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975) 237.Google Scholar

¹⁷ See , Georgi, “Life of Jesus Theology,” 77Google Scholar : “In following Reimarus' distinction between pre- and post-Easter and in picking up Hegel's theologically-based notions of collective consciousness, Strauss had claimed that the theological relevance did not lie with Jesus' earthly career but with his afterlife in the Christian community in which Jesus had become the object of the collective consciousness of the disciples.”

¹⁸ Baur, Ferdinand Christian, Kritische Untersuchungen über die kanonischen Evangelien, ihr Verhältnis zu einander, ihren Charakter und Ursprung (Tübingen: Fues, 1847)Google Scholar ; and idem, Das Markusevangelium nach seinem Ursprung und Charakter (Tübingen: Fues, 1851).

¹⁹ Zeller, Eduard, “Über den dogmatischen Charakter des dritten Evangeliums, mit besonderer Rucksicht auf sein Verhältniss zur Apostelgeschichte und zum Johannesevangelium,” Theologische Jahrbücher (Tübingen) 2 (1843) 59–90.Google Scholar

²⁰ In fact, Hilgenfeld, Adolf (Das Markus-evangelium, nach seiner Composition, seiner Stellung in der Evangelien-literatur, seinem Ursprung und Charakter [Leipzig: Breitkopf & Hartel, 1850] 8–30)Google Scholar argued on the basis of Tendenzkritik that Mark was not the final gospel, but should be dated between Matthew and Luke.

²¹ Holtzmann, Heinrich Julius, Die synoptischen Evangelien: Ihr Ursprung und geschichtltcher Charakter (Leipzig: Engelmann, 1863).Google ScholarMeijboom, Hajo Uden (Geschiedenis en critiek der Marcushypothese [Amsterdam: Kraay, 1866])Google Scholar offers one of the few critiques. This dissertation has now been published in an English translation by Kiwiet, John J., A History and Critique of the Origin of the Marcan Hypothesis, 1835-1866: A Contemporary Report Rediscovered (New Gospel Studies 8; Louvain: Peeters; Macon, GA.: Mercer University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

²² , Holtzmann, Die synoptischen Evangelien, 468–96.Google Scholar

²³ Schenkel, Daniel, Das Charakterbild Jesu (3d ed.; Wiesbaden: Kreidel, 1864)Google Scholar ; Weizsäcker, Carl, Untersuchungen überdie evangelische Geschichte undden Gang ihrer Entwicklung (Gotha: Besser, 1864)Google Scholar ; Hase, Karl von, Geschichte Jesu: Nach akademischen Vorlesungen (Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel, 1876)Google Scholar ; Beyschlag, Willibald, Das Leben Jesu (2 vols.; Halle: Strien, 1885)Google Scholar ; Weiss, Bernhard, Das Leben Jesu (2d ed.; 2 vols.; Berlin: Hertz, 1884).Google Scholar Typical of these “lives” was the interpretation of the kingdom of God as a spiritual kingdom of repentance and the conviction, based on Holtzmann's reading of Mark, that Jesus' messianic consciousness developed, precipitated principally by a “Galilean crisis” in which Jesus came t o face the failure of his mission.

²⁴ The designation “Q” was first used intentionally by Weiss, Johannes, “Die Verteidigung Jesu gegen den Vorwurf des Biindnisses mit Beelzebul,” ThStK 63 (1890) 555–69.Google Scholar Frans Neirynck has recently pointed out, however, that Weiss may have been influenced by Simons, Eduard (Hat der dritte Evangelist den kanonischen Matthäus benutzt? [Bonn: Georgi, 1880] 4, 22, 29, 30, 68)Google Scholar whose principal designation for the sayings source was A (or “die apostolischen Quelle” or “die zweite Hauptquelle”), but who occasionally referred to “die Weiss'sche Quelle” or “die W. sche Q” and “A (Q).” See Neirynck, Frans, “A Synopsis of Q,” in Segbroeck, Frans Van, ed., Evangelica Il: 1982-1991 Collected Essays (BETL 99; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991) 474Google Scholar.

²⁵ Wendt, Hans Hinrich, Die Lehre Jesu (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1886)Google Scholar ; , ET: The Teaching of Jesus (2 vols., Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1892) 1. 21-22; 2. 398–401Google Scholar.

²⁶ Wernle, Paul, Die synoptische Frage (Leipzig, Freiburg, and Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1899)Google Scholar ; Harnack, Adolf von, 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 (New Testament Studies 2; London: Williams & Norgate; New York: Putnam's, 1908).Google Scholar

²⁷ , Wendt (Die Lehre Jesu, 23–33)Google Scholar proposed a reconstruction of the Matthäuslogia (without actually providing a Greek text) which included not only the double tradition but much special Matthaean and Lukan material. Resch, Alfred (Die Logia Jesu nach dent griechischen und hebräischen Text wiederhergestellt [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1898])Google Scholar attempted a reconstruction of “the Logia of Jesus” () in both Greek and Hebrew (!). His “reconstruction,” however, was indiscriminate and idiosyncratic and included the double tradition (sometimes broken up and rearranged), supplemented by selected Markan narratives, special Matthaean and Lukan materials, and scattered sayings and stories from the agrapha.

²⁸ Hawkins, John C., Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Study of the Synoptic Problem (Oxford: Clarendon, 1899) 88–92Google Scholar ; (2d ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1909) 107-113 (a synopsis of verses belonging to Q); Robinson, John A., The Study of the Gospels (London: Longmans, Green, 1902) 86–102Google Scholar (a synopsis of the contents of Q) ; Stanton, Vincent H., The Gospels as Historical Documents (3 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1903-1920) 2. 76–79Google Scholar (principles for reconstructing Q and a sketch of its contents) ; Burton, Ernest de Witt, Some Principles of Literary Criticism and Their Application to the Synoptic Problem (The Decennial Publications, First Series 5; Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1904) 41–49Google Scholar (logical principles for reconstructing the common Matthew-Luke material).

²⁹ Harnack, von, Sprüche und Reden Jesu, 88–102Google Scholar ; Weiss, Bernhard, Die Quellen der synoptischen Überlieferung (TU 32; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1908) 1–96Google Scholar.

³⁰ Wrede, William, Das Messiasgeheimnis in den Evangelien (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1901)Google Scholar ; , ET: The Messianic Secret (trans. Greig, J. C. G.; Greenwood, SC: Attic, 1971).Google Scholar

³¹ Schmidt, Karl L., Der Rahmen der Geschichte Jesu: Literarkritische Untersuchungen zur ältesten Jesus-Überlieferung (Berlin: Trowitsch & Sohn, 1919)Google Scholar ; Dibelius, Martin, Die Formgeschichte des Evangeliums (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1919)Google Scholar.

³² Harnack, von, Sayings of Jesus, 171:Google Scholar “Q is a compilation of discourses and sayings of our Lord, the arrangement of which has no reference to the Passion, with an horizon which is as good as absolutely bounded by Galilee, without any clearly discernible bias, whether apologetic, didactic, ecclesiastical, national or anti-national.”

³³ Wellhausen, Julius, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (2d ed.; Berlin: Reimer, 1911) 64–79.Google Scholar

³⁴ Bultmann, Rudolf K., “Was lässt die Spruchquelle uber die Urgemeinde erkennen?” Oldenburgisches Kirchenblatt 19 (1913) 35-37, 41–44Google Scholar ; , ET: “What the Saying Source Reveals about the Early Church,” in Kloppenborg, John S., ed., The Shape of Q: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 23–34Google Scholar.

³⁵ Stanton, Vincent H., The Gospels as Historical Documents, 2. 111–12Google Scholar (on Q), 195-96 (on Mark).

³⁶ Manson, Thomas W., “The Sayings of Jesus,” in Major, H. D. A., Manson, Thomas W., and Wright, Charles J., eds., The Mission and Message of Jesus: An Exposition of the Gospels in the Light of Modern Research (London: Nicholson & Watson, 1937) 299–639Google Scholar ; printed separately as The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949).Google Scholar Only in a few instances does Manson discuss the possibility of editorial transformation; in the case of Q 7:1-10, he argues that only the dialogue comes from Q and that Matthew and Luke independently supplied the narrative framework. He suggests, moreover, that the Q story appeared later in Q (with the result that Q 6:20-49 was followed immediately by Q 7:18-28, 31-35). Nevertheless, these changes do not, for Manson, affect the historicity of a healing taking place in Capernaum. See , Manson, The Sayings of Jesus, 63–66Google Scholar.

³⁷ Tödt, Heinz E., Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Überlieferung (Dr. Theol. diss., Heidelberg, 1956; Gutersloh: Mohn, 1959).Google Scholar

³⁸ Polag, Athanasius, “Der Umfang der Logienquelle” (Dr. Theol. diss., University of Trier, 1966).Google Scholar

³⁹ Lührmann, Dieter, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (WMANT 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969).Google Scholar

⁴⁰ , Tödt, Der Menschensohn, 59-60, 206, 210.Google Scholar Tödt argues that Q 11:30; 12:8-9, 40; and 17:24, 26, 30 are authentic. He notes (p. 210): “The Master himself had promised to his own that their attachment to him would be guaranteed and confirmed by the Son of Man. The post-Easter community realized that these words of promise implied a continuity between the one who gave the promise on earth and the one who will return to fulfill what has been promised. Consequently, they made the step to christology.” He later asserts (p. 245) that “Son of Man christology and Q belong together both conceptually and in terms of tradition history.”

⁴¹ , Tödt (Der Menschensohn, 59-61, 105–116)Google Scholar includes both the coming Son of Man sayings (the Lot correlative, Luke 17:28-29, Matt 10:23, Matt 19:28) and the earthly Son of Man sayings (Q 6:22-23; 7:34; 9:58; 12:10) as secondary creations of the “Q tradition.”

⁴² Vielhauer, Philipp, “Gottesreich und Menschensohn in der Verkundigung Jesu,” in Schneemelcher, Wilhelm, ed., Festschrift für Günther Dehn zum 75. Geburtstag am 18. April 1957 dargebracht (Neukirchen: Kreis Moers, 1957) 51–79Google Scholar ; reprinted in Vielhauer, Philipp, ed., Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament (ThBü 31; Munich: Kaiser, 1965) 55–91Google Scholar ; idem, “Jesus und der Menschensohn: Zur Diskussion mit Heinz Eduard Todt und Eduard Schweizer,” ZThK 60 (1963) 133-77; reprinted in idem, Aufsätze zum Neuen Testament, 92-140 ; Perrin, Norman, A Modern Pilgrimage in New Testament Christology (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974)Google Scholar.

⁴³ This point has been argued by Hoffmann, Paul, “QR und der Menschensohn: Eine vorlaufige Skizze,” in Segroeck, Van, al, et., eds. The Four Gospels, 1992, 421–56Google Scholar ; , ET: “The Redaction of Q and the Son of Man: A Preliminary Sketch,” in Piper, Roland A., ed., The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (NovTSup 75; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 159–98Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ , Lührmann, Redaktion, 94Google Scholar ; , ET: “Q in the History of Early Christianity,” in , Kloppenborg, The Shape of Q, 67.Google Scholar Lührmann, however, did not think that the Son of Man christology belonged to the redaction of Q. On the contrary, “In the redaction of Q the sayings that concern the Son of Man coming in judgment are one means of enforcing its motif of the announcement of judgment, but only one means; they appear along with a saying such as Q 11:49-51, which reflects completely different tradition-historical presuppositions but which serves the same purpose” (85–86, ET: 60). On this problem, see also Schürmann, Heinz, “Beobachtungen zum Menschensohn-Titel in der Redequelle,” in Pesch, Rudolf and Schnackenburg, Rudolf, eds., Jesus und der Menschensohn: Für Anton Vögtle (Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 1975) 124–47Google Scholar ; , ET: “Observations on the Son of Man Title in the Speech Source: Its Occurrence in Closing and Introductory Expressions,” in , Kloppenborg, The Shape of Q, 74–97Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ Luz, Ulrich, “Das Jesusbild der vormarkinischen Tradition,” in Strecker, Georg, ed., Jesus Christus in Historie und Theologie: Festschrift für Hans Conzelmann (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1975) 347–74, esp. 349.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Bultmann, Rudolf, Theologie des Neuen Testaments (2 vols.; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1948-1953) 1. 1–2:Google Scholar “The proclamation of Jesus belongs among the presuppositions of the theology of the New Testament rather than a part of that theology itself…. But Christian faith does not exist until there is a Christian kerygma, i.e., a kerygma that proclaims Jesus Christ–indeed, Jesus Christ the Crucified and Risen One–as God's eschatological act of salvation…. Thus theological thinking–the theology of the New Testament–begins only with the kerygma of the early Church” (my translation).

⁴⁷ Kasemann, Ernst, “Sätze Heiligen Rechtes im Neuen Testament,” NTS 1 (1954-1955) 248–60,CrossRefGoogle Scholar reprinted in idem, Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen (2 vols.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1960-64) 2. 69-82. Jesus himself, however, was not an apocalypticist: see idem, “Die Anfänge christlicher Theologie,” ZThK 57(1960) 162-85, reprinted in Exegetische Versuche und Besinnungen, 2. 82-104, esp. 99: “Jesus admittedly made the apocalyptically determined message of John his point of departure; his own preaching, however, did not bear a fundamentally apocalyptic stamp but proclaimed the immediacy of God who was near at hand. I am convinced that no one who took this step can have been prepared to wait for the coming Son of Man, the restoration of the Twelve Tribes in the Messianic kingdom and the dawning of the Parousia (which was tied up with this) in order to experience the near presence of God.”

⁴⁸ Schulz, Siegfried, “Die Anfänge urchristlicher Verkündigung: Zur Traditions- und Theologiegeschichte der altesten Christenheit,” in Luz, Ulrich and Weder, Hans, eds., Die Mine des Neuen Testaments: Einheit und Vielfalt neutestamentlicher Theologie: Festschrift für Eduard Schweizer (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983) 254.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Schulz, Siegfried, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972) 61.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ For discussion, see Kloppenborg, John S., “Tradition and Redaction in the Synoptic Sayings Source,” CBQ 46 (1984) 34–62Google Scholar , esp. 39-45; and Hoffmann, Paul, “Review of Siegfried Schulz, Q: Spruchquelle der Evangelisten” BZ n.s. 19 (1975) 104–15Google Scholar.

⁵¹ , Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle, 483.Google Scholar

⁵² Ibid., 61: “Even if sayings of the historical Jesus are found in the oldest Q traditions, they were not designated as such, but simply stood alongside sayings of early Christian prophets. The name Jesus does not even appear in the oldest Q materials!” (my translation).

⁵³ Ibid., 482-83 (my translation).

⁵⁴ Whether Q 12:8-9 refers to Dan 7:13-14 is disputed: see Casey, Maurice, Son of Man: The Interpretation and Influence of Daniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1980) 194Google Scholar : “It cannot be seen as a deliberate reference to [Dan 7:13]”; Jacobson, Arland D., “Apocalyptic and the Synoptic Sayings Source Q,” in Segbroeck, Frans Van, et al., The Four Gospels, 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (BETL 100; Leuven: Peeters, 1992) 416Google Scholar : “the evidence of influence of Dan 7,13-14 on the Son of Man in Q is very scant; by contrast, it is quite clear in Mk 13,26 and 14,62.” Caragounis, Chrys C., The Son of Man (WUNT 2/38; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1986) 203:Google Scholar “The connections with Dan 7:13f. are so obvious that it is unncessary to belabour the point.” Perhaps the best discussion is that of Christopher Tuckett, M. (Studies on Q: Aspects of the History of Early Christianity as Reflected in the Sayings Source Q [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1995] 266–76)Google Scholar , but his case for an allusion to Daniel is weak.

⁵⁵ Hare, Douglas R. A., The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990) 220.Google Scholar One should add Q 3:7-9, 16-17 to Hare's list of judgment texts.

⁵⁶ See Kloppenborg, John S., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 211.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See especially Hoffmann, Paul, “QR und der Menschensohn,” 453–56Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ Robinson, James M. and Koester, Helmut, Trajectories through Early Christianity (Philadelphia; Fortress, 1971).Google Scholar

⁵⁹ Koester, Helmut, “ΓΝΩΜΑΙ φιΑΦΟΡΟι: The Origin and Nature of Diversification in the History of Early Christianity,” HTR 58(1965) 279–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; reprinted in , Robinson and , Koester, Trajectories, 114–57.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Koester, Helmut, “One Jesus and Four Primitive Gospels,” HTR 61 (1968) 203–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; reprinted in Robinson and , Koester, Trajectories, 158–204Google Scholar.

⁶¹ See also , Koester's later essay, “Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels,” HTR 73 (1980) 105–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶² Robinson, James M., “ΑΟΓΟΙ ΣΟΦΩΝ: Zur Gattung der Spruchquelle Q,” in Dinkier, Erich, ed., Zeit und Geschichte: Dankesgabe an RudolfBultmann (Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1964) 77–96Google Scholar ; , ET: “LOGOI SOPHON: On the Gattung of Q,” in , Robinson and , Koester, Trajectories, 71–113.Google Scholar Compare , Robinson, “Kerygma and History in the New Testament,” in , Robinson and , Koester, Trajectories, 43Google Scholar: “Indeed the very gattung of Sayings of the Sages' of which Q is an instance seems to have been moving through a trajectory that led from wisdom literature to Gnosticism.”

⁶³ , Koester, “ΓΝΟΜΑΙ φΙΑΦΟΡΟΙ” 135.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ This is made especially clear in Koester, Helmut, “The Structure and Criteria of Early Christian Beliefs,” in , Robinson and , Koester, Trajectories, 205–31.Google Scholar Koester's model has been influential in the design of Schillebeeckx's, Edward, Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (New York: Seabury, 1979) 404–38Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ For a survey, see Kloppenborg, John S., “The Sayings Gospel Q: Literary and Stratigraphic Problems,” in Uro, Risto, ed., Symbols and Strata. Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q (Suomen Eksegeettisen Seuran Julkaisuja. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 63; Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996)Google Scholar.

⁶⁶ See , Lührmann (Redaktion, 24-48, 93)Google Scholar whose judgment has been accepted and further verified by 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; idem, The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Foundations and Facets: Reference series; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1992); and , Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 102–70.Google Scholar The following have accepted Lührmann's conclusion (with various modifications): Schönle, Volker, Johannes, Jesus und die Juden: Die theologische Position des Matthdus und des Verfassers der Redenquelle im Lichte von Mt. 11 (BBET 17; Franfurt a.M. and Bern: Lang, 1982) 96–97Google Scholar ; Zeller, Dieter, “Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder ‘Sitz im Leben’ beim Q-Material,” in Delobel, Joel, ed., Logia: Les Paroles de Jésus–The Sayings ofJesus: Mémorial Joseph Coppens (BETL 59; Leuven: Peeters, 1982) 408Google Scholar ; idem, Kommentar zur Logienquelle (Stuttgarter kleiner Kommentar, Neues Testament 21; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984) 93-96 ; Sellew, Philip, “Early Collections of Jesus' Words: The Development of Dominical Discourses” (Th.D. diss., Harvard Divinity School, 1986) 48Google Scholar ; Uro, Risto, Sheep among the Wolves: A Study on the Mission Instructions of Q (Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertationes humanarum litterarum 47; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1987)4-5, 241Google Scholar ; Sato, Migaku, Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT 2/29; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1988) 44–46Google Scholar ; Kosch, Daniel, Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes: Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Stellung Jesu zur Tora in Q (NTOA 12; Freiburg: Universitäts-Verlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989) 422–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Piper, Ronald A., Wisdom in the Q tradition: the Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus (SNTSMS 61; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989) 166–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Koester, Helmut, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity; London: SCM, 1990) 135Google Scholar ; Robinson, James M., “The Q Trajectory: Between John and Matthew via Jesus,” in Pearson, Birger, ed., The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 173–94Google Scholar ; Tuckett, Christopher M., “On the Stratification of Q,” Semeia 55 (1991) 213–22Google Scholar ; idem, “Mark and Q,” in , Focant, The Synoptic Gospels, 157Google Scholar ; and , Hoffmann, “QR und der Menschensohn,” 450Google Scholar.

⁶⁷ See Zeller, Dieter, Die weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern (FB 17; Würzburg: Echter, 1977) 191–92Google Scholar ; , Piper, Wisdom in the Q-traditionGoogle Scholar.

⁶⁸ This notion still informs the views of Kelber, Werner H. (“Jesus and Tradition: Words in Time, Words in Space,” Semeia 65 [1995] 139–67)Google Scholar who refuses to accord Q a genuinely literary status.

⁶⁹ Fuller, Reginald H., “Biblical Studies, 1955-1990,” ATR 76 (1994) 160–70Google Scholar , esp. 165: “John S. Kloppenborg has argued for a proto-Q in which Jesus is reduced to the status of a teacher of wisdom.”

⁷⁰ , Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 287Google Scholar ; similarly idem, “Tradition and Redaction,” 42: “Tradition history… is not the same as literary history, nor does it necessarily authorize conclusions in regard to the theological history of the community. One does not have to look very far to find examples of very ancient sayings incorporated into documents at a secondary level of redaction. Some Matthean and Lucan Sondergul falls into this class” (emphasis original); idem. Formation of Q, 244–45: “To say that the wisdom components were formative for Q and that the prophetic judgment oracles and apophthegms describing Jesus' conflict with “this generation” are secondary is not to imply anything about the ultimate tradition-historical provenance of any of the sayings. It is possible, indeed probable, that some of the materials from the secondary compositional phrase are dominical or at least very old, and that some of the formative elements are, from the standpoint of authenticity or tradition history, relatively young” (emphasis original); idem, “The Formation of Q Revisited: A Response to Richard Horsley,” Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers (ed. David J. Lull; SBLASP 28; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989) 206: “It should be stressed that the assignment of a set of sayings of the framing redaction implies nothing about their ultimate tradition-historical provenance or their authenticity; it is a literary observation.” Similarly, Koester, Helmut, “Jesus the Victim,” JBL 111 (1992) 7:Google Scholar “The tendency in recent scholarship toward a noneschatological Jesus is, of course, closely related to the discovery of the Gospel of Thomas and to the hypothesis of an earlier stage of the Synoptic Sayings Source (Q), in which the apocalyptic expectation of the coming Son of Man was still absent–a hypothesis that I myself have supported. It is questionable, however, whether this early stage of Q can really be defined as noneschatological, even more doubtful whether one can draw from such observations the conclusion that the preaching of the historical Jesus had no relation to eschatology.” See also Kosch, Daniel, “Q und Jesus,” BZ n.S. 36 (1992) 37Google Scholar.

⁷¹ One of the most egregious misunderstandings is found in Edward Meadors, P., Jesus and the Messianic Herald of Salvation: A Study of Q and Mark (WUNT 2/72; Tübingen: Mohr/Siebeck, 1995) 31-32, 37, 120-23, 316–18Google Scholar and throughout. Similar methodological confusions can be seen in Williams, James G., “Parable and Chreia; From Q to Narrative Gospel,” Semeia 43 (1988) 85–114Google Scholar ; Collins, A. Yarbro, “The Son of Man Sayings in the Sayings Source,” in Horgan, Maurya P. and Kobelski, Paul J., eds., To Touch the Text: Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (New York: Crossroads, 1989) 369–89Google Scholar ; and especially Witherington, Ben, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 217.Google Scholar Witherington cites my caveats (see above, n. 70) but then proceeds (citing Theissen) to confuse literary history with tradition history and questions of authenticity. See Theissen, Gerd, The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 205.Google Scholar Theissen seems to grasp the distinction between tradition-historical approaches and literary critical analyses, but misunderstands the argument in Formation of Q as “form critical,” which clearly it is not.

⁷² See n. 66.

⁷³ See n. 66.

⁷⁴ Vaage, Leif E., Galilean Upstarts: Jesus' First Followers According to Q (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1994). In an earlier article,Google Scholar, Vaage (“Ql and the Historical Jesus: Some Peculiar sayings [7:33-34; 9:57-58, 59-60; 14:26-27],” Forum 5/2 [1989] 159–76)Google Scholar argues that Q 7:33-34; 9:57-58, 59-60; and 14:26-27 cohere and attributes them to Jesus.

⁷⁵ See n. 54.

⁷⁶ Crossan, John Dominic, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1991).Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Mack, Burton L., A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 53–77Google Scholar ; idem, “The Kingdom that Didn't Come: A Social History of the Q Tradents,” Society of Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers (ed. D. J. Lull; SBLASP 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 608-35; and idem, The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q & Christian Origins (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1993). See also , Mack's reply to his critics in “A Myth of Innocence at Sea,” Continuum 1/2 (1991) 140–57Google Scholar.

⁷⁸ See Carlson, Jeffrey and Ludwig, Robert A., eds., Jesus and Faith: A Conversation on the work of John Dominic Crossan (Maryknoll, NY: Orbis, 1994).Google Scholar

⁷⁹ , Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, 238Google Scholar ; Weiss, Johannes, Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1892)Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ , Luz, “Das Jesusbild,” 350.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Luhrmann, Dieter, “Die Logienquelle und die Frage nach dem historischen Jesus,” (paper presented at a meeting of the Westar Institute, Edmonton, Alberta, Fall 1991) 5.Google Scholar

⁸² While unscholarly and sensational reviews have criticized Crossan's use of Q (and stratigraphy) without much awareness of the relevant literature on the topic or the history of scholarship in general, a serious assessment is offered by Scott, Bernard Brandon, “To Impose is not / To discover: Methodology in John Dominic Crossan's The Historical Jesus,” in , Carlson and , Ludwig, Jesus and Faith, 26Google Scholar : “Crossan's reconstruction of the historical evidence does not depend on idiosyncratic or unproven stratification. Much of his stratification is dependent on the work of others, such as John Kloppenborg for Q–The Synoptic Sayings Source and Stephen Patterson for the Gospel of Thomas. Furthermore, since he does not depend on any single cluster or single item from a cluster, a rearrangement of the stratification would not drastically affect his argument.”

⁸³ A case in point is Matthew's formula “you have heard that it was said to the ancients, but I say to you” (ήκούσατε ὃτι έρρέθη τοίς άρχαίοις…έγώ δέ λέγω ύμίν), which figures importantly in various reconstructions of the historical Jesus. Käsemann, Since (“The Problem of the Historical Jesus,” Essays on New Testament Themes [SBT 1/41; London: SCM, 1964] 37–38)Google Scholar scholars privilege this formula, although they also regularly admit that the third, fifth, and sixth antitheses (all from Q) are secondary formulations. See, for example, Kummel, Werner Georg, The Theology of the New Testament According to its Major Witnesses, Jesus, Paul, John (Nashville: Abingdon, 1973) 52Google Scholar ; Jeremias, Joachim, New Testament Theology: The Proclamation of Jesus (London: SCM; New York: Scribner's, 1971) 251–55Google Scholar ; Meyer, Ben F., The Aims of Jesus (London: SCM, 1979) 166Google Scholar ; Strecker, Georg, The Sermon on the Mount: An Exegetical Commentary (New York and Nashville: Abingdon, 1988) 63–65Google Scholar ; Luz, Ulrich, Matthew 1-7 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989) 274–79Google Scholar ; Davies, W. D. and Allison, Dale C., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Matthew I-VII (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) 505.Google Scholar Others, however, treat all of the antitheses as Matthaean redaction: Suggs, M. Jack, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970) 109–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar ; Broer, Ingo, “Die Antithesen und der Evangelist Matthairs,” BZ 19(1975) 50–63Google Scholar ; Gundry, Robert H., Matthew: A Commentary on his Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1982) 82–84Google Scholar ; Stanton, Graham N., The Gospel for a New People (Louisville: Wesminster/John Knox, 1993) 301.See also the careful approach to the antitheses inGoogle ScholarSanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism (London: SCM, 1985) 260–63Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ , CiceroDe Inventione 1.7.9Google Scholar: “Invention is the devising of valid arguments or seemingly valid arguments that render one's cause plausible” (inventio est excogitatio rerum verarum aut ver similium quae causam probabilem reddant; dispositio est rerum inventarum in ordinem distributio). See also idemDe partitione oratorio 1.3-2.6.

⁸⁵ Meier, John P. (A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus [2 vols.; New York: Doubleday, 1991-1994] 2. 181)Google Scholar correctly argues that a saying which “entered into the Q document at a secondary stage of its composition… would tell us nothing about whether the logion originally came from Jesus or was created by the early church.” He rejects as unknowable, however, any attempts to specify the structure or compositional features of Q and treats Q as a “grab bag.” Such a view is convenient to Meier's purpose; it allows him to ignore compositional features in Q in a way that he would not dare to in the case of Mark or Matthew. If he thought that the composition history of Q was unknowable, the appropriate posture would be to use all Q sayings with extreme caution; instead, he assumes that unknowable means nonexistent so that he can short-circuit scholarship. This is an (unargued) attempt to turn the clock back to the time of von Harnack, who regarded Q as an unedited deposit of dominical sayings.

⁸⁶ Dupont, Jaeques, “Le Logion de douze trónes (Matt 19:28; Luke 22:28-30),” Bib 45 (1964) 388Google Scholar (my translation). Beasley-Murray, George R. (Jesus and the Kingdom of God [Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1986] 277)Google Scholar follows this argument. Sanders, E. P. (Jesus and Judaism, 98–106)Google Scholar treats this saying because of its use of the term “twelve.” He considers Matthew's έπί δώδεκα θρόνους to be original, arguing that Luke deleted δώδεκα because of embarrassment about the betrayal of Judas.

⁸⁷ Bammel, Ernst, “Das Ende von Q,” in Boøher, O. and Haacker, K., eds., Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für Gustav Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag (Wuppertal: Brockhaus, 1970) 39–50.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ It is doubtful that Q read έπί δώδεκα θρόνους. The International Q Project has treated SCOSEKOC as a Matthaean addition. See Paul Hoffmann's evaluation for the project database: “The mention of the Twelve would be singular in Q; Q knows only of the open circle of Jesus' followers/disciples…. Since the interpolation of the number twelve can be easily justified at the level of Matthean redaction, a decision can be made in favor of Luke's indefinite formulation, which is in general closer to Q” (my translation of the forthcoming database and evaluation).

⁸⁹ The terrifying nature of Q's conclusion is often overlooked. See Kloppenborg, John S., “Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q,” in , Piper, The Gospel behind the Gospels, 295–300Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ Horsley, Richard A., Jesus and the Spiral of Violence: Popular Jewish Resistance in Roman Palestine (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 199–208Google Scholar ; and idem, “Q and Jesus: Assumptions, Approaches, and Analyses,” Semeia 55 (1991) 196.

⁹¹ , Dupont, “Le Logion de douze trônes,” 372Google Scholar (my translation).

⁹² So Bultmann, Rudolf, Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT 29; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1931) 171Google Scholar ; Büchsel, Friedrich and Herntrich, Volkmar, “κρίνω, κρίσις, κρίμα, κριτής,” TDNT 3 (1965) 923.Google Scholar

⁹³ Funk, Robert W., Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God: The Problem of Language in the New Testament and Contemporary Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1966) 161.Google Scholar Compare Marguerat, Daniel, “La parabole de Jésus aux évangiles: Une histoire de réception,” in Delorme, Jean, ed., Les paraboles évangéliques: Perspectives nouvelles (Lectio divina 135; Paris: Cerf, 1989) 71Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ See , Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q,” 281–85.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ , AristotleRhetorica 2.20.1393a 28–29Google Scholar ; Quintilian 5.11.1.

⁹⁶ See Q 6:47-49 (concluding 6:20-45, 46); 7:31-32 (concluding 7:18-28); 14:16-24 (following 13:28-29, 30, 34-35); 19:12-27 (concluding 17:23-37).

⁹⁷ See Q 12:16-21 (introducing 12:22-31, 33-34); 15:4-7, 8-10 (introducing 16:13, 16-18; 17:1-2, 3b-4, 6). For a fuller discussion, see , Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q,” 290–317.Google Scholar I have argued that Q 13:18-21 originally served as the conclusion to 12:2-7, 11-12, 22-31, 33-34, prior to the interpolation (by catchword) of 12:39-59.

⁹⁸ The point here is not to create a sharp division between the parables as performance of Jesus and later interpretations. There are significant continuities, as Marguerat, Daniel (“La parabole, de Jésus aux évangiles,” 61–88)Google Scholar has emphasized. I only stress that the parables in Q have already been placed in the service of another rhetoric.

⁹⁹ , Jacobson, The First Gospel, 127.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ So , Kosch, “Q und Jesus,” 35–36.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ The deeds of the Messiah listed in 4Q521 bears an uncanny resemblance to the deeds of Jesus listed in Q 7:22. For the text, see Puech, Emile, “Une apocalypse messianique (4Q521),” RevQ 15 (1992) 475–522.Google Scholar See also Collins, John J. (“The Works of the Messiah,” Dead Sea Discoveries 1/1 [1994] 98–112)CrossRefGoogle Scholar , who notes the Elijianic character of 4Q521's messiah.

¹⁰² , Meier (A Marginal Jew, 2. 509–1038)Google Scholar , for example, devotes five hundred pages to the miracle stories.

¹⁰³ Kloppenborg, John S., “‘Easter Faith’ and the Sayings Gospel Q,” Semeia 49 (1990) 71–99.Google Scholar The narrative functions of provocation, conspiracy, trial and condemnation, ordeal, prayer, protest, assistance, vindication, exaltation and acclamation (of the righteous) and punishment (of the persecutors) are key elements of the “wisdom tale” analyzed by Nickelsburg, George W. E., Resurrection, Immortality, and Eternal Life in Intertestamental Judaism (HTS 26; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1972) 48–92Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁴ I am indebted to Nickelsburg's seminal discussion of these narrative functions in the Markan passion narrative. See Nickelsburg, George W. E., “The Genre and Function of the Marcan Passion Narrative,” HTR 73 (1980) 153–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Similarly, , Kosch, “Q und Jesus,” 36.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ The only possible candidate for a Q saying on the Sabbath is Luke 14:5. This has been included in Q with a (C) rating by the International Q Project (see Robinson, James M., “The International Q Project Work Session 16 November 1991,” JBL 111 [1992] 506Google Scholar ; see also Neirynck, Frans, “Luke 14,1-6: Lukan Composition and Q Saying,” in Bussmann, Claus and Radl, Walter, eds., Der Treue Goites trauen: Beiträge zum Werk des Lukas: Für Gerhard Schneider [Freiburg, Basel, and Vienna: Herder, 1991] 243–63).Google Scholar I do not find the grounds for inclusion substantial enough, but even if it belonged to Q, no context for the saying is given (since there is agreement that 14:1-4, 6 are not from Q). , Kosch (Die eschatologische Tora, 208)Google Scholar is undecided whether 14:5 comes from Q or not. He notes the sapiential character of the saying and states, “Obviously, one cannot dispute the fact that the saying reflects the context of Jewish issues. Nevertheless, it is clear that the experientially-based (rather than halakic) argument has nothing to do with a conflict with halakah on the Sabbath and is completely silent in regard to an ‘abrogation’ of the Sabbath law. The critical potential of the rhetorical question is realized only when it is read as the answer (or counterquestion) to the question why Jesus assists people in need even on the Sabbath, of all days” (my translation).

¹⁰⁷ Some have argued that Luke 10:25-28 derives from Q, including Robert Derrenbacker, in his database and evaluation for the International Q Project and Lambrecht, Jan, “The Great Commandment Pericope and Q,” in , Piper, The Gospel behind the Gospels, 73–96.Google Scholar This proposal, however, was rejected by the IQP as “(D) not in Q.”

¹⁰⁸ See Vaage, Leif E., “The Woes in Q (and Matthew and Luke): Deciphering the Rhetoric of Criticism,” Society of Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers (ed. Lull, David J.; SBLASP 27; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1988) 582–607.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ , Already in Jesus and Judaism, 264–69Google Scholar , Sanders took a skeptical view of the Sabbath controversies. Sanders works this out in much greater detail in Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah: Five Studies (Philadelphia: Trinity, 1990) 1–96.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Hengel, Martin and Deines, Roland, “E. P. Sanders' ‘Common Judaism,’ Jesus, and the Pharisees,” JTS 46 (1995) 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar (emphasis original).

¹¹¹ Ironically, for Sanders supports the Farrer-Goulder hypothesis (Mark => Matt => Luke). See Sanders, E. P. and Davies, Margaret, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1989) 112–19.Google Scholar

¹¹² See , Sanders, Jewish Law, 6–19Google Scholar for a discussion of the various differences over Sabbath practice.

¹¹³ Kloppenborg, John S., “Nomos and Ethos in Q,” in Goehring, James E., et al., eds., Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of James M. Robinson (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1990) 35–48Google Scholar , esp. 40-43. , Kosch (Die eschatologische Tora, 163–67)Google Scholar agrees that 11:42c is an addition, but thinks that it was a relatively early addition (which played no important role in the theology of the Q group).

¹¹⁴ See , Kloppenborg, “Nomos and Ethos in Q,” 39.Google Scholar On the Shammaite distinction, see Neusner, Jacob, “‘First Cleanse the Inside’: The Halakic Background of a Controversy Saying,” NTS 22 (1976) 486–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹⁵ See the balanced discussion of the problem of Jesus and the law by Marguerat, Daniel, “Jésus et la loi dans la mémoire des premiers Chrétiens,” in Marguerat, Daniel and Zumstein, Jean, eds., La mémoire et le temps: Mélanges offerts à Pierre Bonnard (Le Monde de la Bible 23; Geneve: Labor et Fides, 1991) 55–74.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ , Kosch, “Q und Jesus,” 35.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Downing, F. Gerald, “Wordprocessing in the Ancient World: The Social Production and Performance of Q,” JSNT (1996)Google Scholar forthcoming. I am grateful to Rev. Downing for providing me with a prepublication copy of this paper. See also Gamble, Harry Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995) 83–84.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ , Downing, “Word Processing,” 10Google Scholar (of the typewritten manuscript). Compare the criticisms of stratigraphic models by Christopher Tuckett, M., “On the Stratification of Q,” Semeia 55 (1991) 214Google Scholar : “if too much of a disjunction between layers is postulated, or if total rejection of the earlier tradition by the later editor is proposed, the question arises why the earlier tradition was ever used at all by the later editor.”

¹¹⁹ , Mack, “The Kingdom that Didn't Come,” 608–35Google Scholar ; and idem, The Lost Gospel, 46-49, 131-47. A careful reading of these works indicates that the discontinuities are not as marked as Downing suggests.

¹²⁰ Compare Allison, Dale C., “A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology,” JBL 113 (1994) 661Google Scholar (citing , Kloppenborg, Formation of Q)Google Scholar : “[S]everal contributors to the discussion have decided that the earliest, or at least early, version of Q contained no future Son of Man sayings and that the eschatological pathos present in the Q known to Matthew and Luke was a secondary development.” For a far more serious distortion, see Wright, Nicholas T. (Christian Origins and the Question of God [Minneapolis: Fortress; London: SPCK, 1992] 437)Google Scholar , who caricatures the positions of myself, , Koester, , Downing, , Mack, and , Crossan as presenting Jesus as “a teacher of aphoristic, quasi-Gnostic, quasi-Cynic wisdom”Google Scholar (!) and the formative stratum of Q as knowing “nothing of an apocalyptic future expectation.” This is nonsense and only underscores Wright's careless and tendentious reading of Formation of Q. I am quite clear on the point; see Formation of Q, 241: “The driving force behind the radical ethic and comportment of the community [represented by Q,] comes undoubtedly from the conviction that the kingdom is dawning…. With some justification this stratum of Q could be termed ‘the radical wisdom of the kingdom of God.’ The dawning of the kingdom motivates the radical ethic of Q.” See also p. 320: “Throughout, the radical ethic of Q is associated with the proclamation of the kingdom and with the conviction that the kingdom is dawning” and p. 321: “[Q's] new order is not in continuity with the old and requires a completely new response. Nevertheless, the ideological structure of Q must be seen in relation to the structure of the wisdom instruction. Although Q infuses the form with new content, and although it shifts from a presupposition of this-worldly order to eschatological order, the basic hermeneutic of the instruction is preserved” (all emphasis added). See also Kloppenborg, John S., “Symbolic Eschatology and the Apocalypticism of Q,” HTR 80 (1987) 292Google Scholar : [Apropos of Q 12:2-3]: “Thus wisdom is set in the eschatological context of the manifestation of the Kingdom and conversely, the coming or presence of the Kingdom is expressed by means of sapiential logic.”

¹²¹ Carruth, Shawn, “Strategies of Authority: A Rhetorical Study of the Character of the Speaker in Q 6:20–49,” in Kloppenborg, John S., ed., Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1995) 111.Google Scholar

¹²² Some authors assume that the mere mention of the “kingdom” is sufficient to evoke the full scenario expressed in Daniel; see Viviano, Benedict T., The Kingdom of God in History (Good News Studies 27; Wilmington: Glazier, 1988) 13–29Google Scholar , esp. 18. Contrast this with the more careful view of Scott, Bernard Brandon (Hear Then the Parable: A Commentary on the Parables of Jesus [Minneapolis: Fortress, 1989] 61)Google Scholar : “It is not as though the kingdom of God as a symbol cannot be used in an apocalyptic system; it can, and Perrin has indicated the evidence. Yet as a symbol it opens onto a much wider spectrum. It varies from the kaddish and the Targumim, especially that of Isaiah, where it is used as a confession, to the later rabbinic coding of it for the yoke of the law. All this merely points out that as a symbol it is polyvalent. Its textual implication indicates how the symbol functions, effects meaning. Symbol functions within a discourse, not abstracted from that discourse” (emphasis added). Vaage, Leif E. (“Monarchy, Community, Anarchy: The Kingdom of God in Paul and Q,” in Kloppenborg, John S. and Vaage, Leif E., eds., Scriptures and Cultural Conversations: Essays for Heinz Guenther at 65 [Toronto Journal of Theology 8/1; Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1992] 52–69)Google Scholar similarly argues that the connotations of the term are always a function of a particular cultural context, but is not inclined to understand the symbol in relation to the Hebrew Bible symbol of God's kingship. In the case of Q, the kingdom ”refers to a process of transvaluation of many ancient… social values. … A way of life otherwise considered poor, desparate, and insignificant is proposed as being instead happy, salutary, self-sufficient, free of worry, full of possibility.”

¹²³ Koester, Helmut, “Jesus the Victim,” JBL 111 (1992) 10–13.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ Downing, F. Gerald, “Common Strands in Pagan, Jewish and Christian Eschatologies in the First Century,” ThZ 51 (1995) 196–211Google Scholar , esp. 209.

¹²⁵ Arnal, William E. (“Redactional Fabrication and Group Legitimation: The Baptist's Preaching in Q 3:7-9, 16-17,” inGoogle Scholar, Kloppenborg, Conflict and Invention, 165–80)Google Scholar recently suggested that the Baptist oracles in 3:7-9, 16-17 are not, as commonly thought, authentic Baptist sayings, but editorial creations of the Q group and means by which to legitimize Q's own marginal status. While Arnal has at least put the historicity of the oracle into question, I think it probable that the core of the oracle is authentic, especially since Q must seemingly go to considerable effort to make Jesus appear to be John's “Coming One,” whose description Jesus manifestly does not fit. On the other hand, that Q redaction has created sayings on the pattern of the Baptist oracles in Q 3 has already plausibly been suggested by Marz, Claus-Peter, “‘Feuer auf die Erde zu werfen bin ich gekommen’: Zum Verstandnis und zur Entstehung von Lk 12:49,” A cause de l'évangile: Mélanges offerts á Dom Jacques Dupont (Lectio divina 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985) 479–511Google Scholar.

¹²⁶ Cameron, Ron, “‘What Have you Come out to See?’ Characterizations of John and Jesus in the Gospels,” Semeia 49 (1990) 35–69.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ On Q's use of Sodom imagery, see Kloppenborg, John S., “City and Wasteland: Narrative World and the Beginning of the Sayings Gospel (Q),” Semeia 52 (1990) 145–60Google Scholar.

¹²⁸ See in particular, Horsley, Richard A., “Innovation in Search of Reorientation: New Testament Studies Rediscovering its Subject Matter,” JAAR 62 (1994) 1127–66Google Scholar , esp. 1140-46.

¹²⁹ Note Dieter Georgi's sage observation: “Whereas for the history-of-religions school the term ‘eschatological’ described the foreignness of Jesus and of the early church–together with Jewish apocalypticism and other comparable ancient eschatologies–for Bultmann… the term ‘eschatological’ stands for the novelty of Christianity, its incomparable superiority, the uniqueness of the victorious religion, deservedly victorious. Wherever a comparison is ventured, wherever analogies lift their head, wherever challenges are heard from other religious options but the canonical ones, the invocation of the ‘eschatological’ is made, and the demons, the shadows have to disappear. Historical criticism thus turns into exorcism” ( “Rudolf Bultmann's Theology of the New Testament Revisited,” in Hobbs, E. C., ed., Bultmann, Retrospect, and Prospect: The Centenary Symposium at Wellesley [HTS 35; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985] 82).Google Scholar In the current discussion in the United States, where apocalyptic language is employed at numerous levels of public discourse: from the Manhattan Project to Apocalypse Now to “Operation Desert Storm,” an apocalyptic Jesus is not as foreign as some would like to think. As Cameron observes, in theological discourse “eschatology” has come to be a “locus of uniqueness” and an ontological rather than a descriptive category (Cameron, “The Anatomy of a Discourse,” 240, citing Smith, Jonathan Z., Drudgery Divine: On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the Religions of Late Antiquity [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990] 41).Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Borg, Marcus J., Jesus in Contemporary Scholarship (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity, 1994) 47–96Google Scholar , esp. 54.

¹³¹ Allison, Dale C., “A Plea for Thoroughgoing Eschatology,” JBL 113 (1994) 651–68.Google Scholar Allison (p. 657) cites in particular Mark 9:1; 13:30 and Matt 10:23: “[I]f only one of these sayings cited was uttered by Jesus, then Schweitzer was probably in truth's vicinity.”

¹³² See , Meier (Marginal Jew, 2. 336–48)Google Scholar for a detailed discussion of the three sayings. Meier thinks that Jesus expected an imminent end, but rejects the authenticity of all three sayings: “the three sayings that are the most promising candidates for logia in which Jesus sets a time limit for the kingdom's arrival (Matt 10:23; Mark 9:1 parr.; Mark 13:30 parr.) all appear, on closer examination, to be creations of the early church” (p. 347).

¹³³ See , Kloppenborg, “Symbolic Eschatology,” 287–306.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ It is generally agreed that Q 10:12 is redactional. For a survey, see , Kloppenborg, “The Sayings Gospel Q: Literary and Stratigraphic Problems,” forthcomingGoogle Scholar.

¹³⁵ In rejecting my argument (“Symbolic Eschatology,” 119) that Q is not in this sense “apocalyptic,” , Tuckett (Studies on Q, 162–63)Google Scholar suggests that my definition of apocalyptic is too narrow (though he does not offer a definition by which Q would qualify as apocalyptic). In the end, however, he concedes: “Nevertheless, Kloppenborg's overall point may stand: Q's ‘apocalyptic’ language is at times unusual in relation to other contemporary uses of such language in being somewhat negative, and also being generated within a rather more world-affirming ethos than some other apocalyptic language. This in turn might, though, simply reflect the fact that the social alienation, so often thought to be a vital factor in the generation of apocalyptic language, was not quite so deep or intense as the Q Christians themselves appeared to maintain.” The latter point–the absence of anomie in Q–is precisely what I had argued distinguished Q from more fully developed apocalyptic schemata.

¹³⁶ März, Claus-Peter, “Feuer auf die Erde zu werfen bin ich gekommen,” 479–511.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Dewey, Arthur J., “A Prophetic Pronouncement: Q 12:42-46,” Forum 5/2 (1989) 99–108Google Scholar ; , Kloppenborg, “Jesus and the Parables of Jesus in Q,” 293–95.Google Scholar Contrast Weiser, Alfons (Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien [SANT 29; Munich: Kösel, 1971] 204–14),Google Scholar who thinks that the core of the parable at least goes back to the historical Jesus.

¹³⁸ Horsley, Richard A., Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 174Google Scholar : “From its frequent occurrence in the gospel tradition and from the form of the saying in Matt 8:11, which was apparently originally a prophetic warning, it is clear that Jesus presupposed the banquet as a standard symbol of deliverance and was confident of, indeed more or less assumed, such imminent future fulfillment.” Similarly, , Meier, A Marginal Jew, 2. 316.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ This should not be taken for granted. See the arguments against authenticity adduced by Steck, Odil H., Israel and das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten(WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1967) 51–56.Google Scholar, Horsley (Jesus and the Spiral of Violence, 300–304)Google Scholar treats 13:34-35 as authentic, but without any argument.

¹⁴⁰ Especially helpful for reorienting the discussion of temporality in synoptic sayings is Malina's, Bruce J. “Christ and Time: Swiss or Mediterranean?” CBQ 51 (1989) 1–31.Google Scholar Malina observes that the modern western psycho-temporal orientation, which privileges the future, has a distorting effect on the interpretation of materials from ancient Mediterranean cultures, whose orientation was primarily present, and secondarily past. Malina also distinguishes experienced time, which includes a horizon of the past and the future tied to the present, from imaginary time (anything that falls outside the horizon of the experienced world). He suggests (p. 15) that “for the members of Jesus movement groups, God's kingdom was forthcoming, Jesus' emergence as Messiah with power was forthcoming, the transformation of social realities in favor of God's people was forthcoming. Yet for the audiences of Mark, Matthew and Luke, … the coming of Jesus is moved into imaginary time.” To use this model, the kingdom in Q1 is clearly forthcoming, in experienced time, and the center of gravity of Q2 is likewise experienced time, although slight consciousness of the “delay” (see Q 12:45) may represent the first stages in a shift toward imaginary time.

¹⁴¹ Koester, Helmut, “The Historical Jesus and the Cult of the Kyrios Christos” HDB 24 (1995) 14.Google Scholar

¹⁴² See, for example, Farmer, William R., The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic Problem (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994).Google Scholar The great merit of this book, unlike others that casually dismiss Q as “merely hypothetical” while at the same time accepting the priority of Mark, is that Farmer is fully prepared to defend his solution to the synoptic problem and then to accept its consequences, both theological and historical.

¹⁴³ See Reed, Jonathan L., “The Social Map of Q,” inGoogle Scholar, Kloppenborg, Conflict and Invention, 17–36Google Scholar.