No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
An abiding challenge for NT study is that of defining generic relationships among texts. The problem is especially significant for gospel sayings material, literary texts which most explicitly evoke and imitate the styles and forms of spoken language. It will be useful, then, to define generically a hitherto unnoticed Synoptic sayings-type exemplified just seven times in the gospels, especially if a class of unusually difficult texts may thereby be illuminated. Its rarity notwithstanding, the ‘Gnomic Quatrain’ (GQ) should be of particular interest as a special elaboration of the much more fundamental genre of the gnomic sentence.
1 (1) Matt 6.24/Luke 16.13; (2) Luke 16.10–12; (3) Matt 6.22–23/Luke 11.34–(36); (4) Matt 10.24–25/Luke 6.40; (5) Matt 7.6; (6) Mark 2.21–22/Matt 9.16–17, Luke 5.36b–39; (7) 10.26b–27/Luke 12.2–3.
2 E.g., Betz, H.-D., ‘Matt 6.22–23 and Ancient Greek Theories of Vision’, Essays on the Sermon on the Mount (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985) 71–87, 72–4Google Scholar; Allison, D., ‘The Eye is the Lamp of the Body (Matthew 6.22–23 = Luke 11.34–36)’, NTS 33 (1987) 61–83, 71–8Google Scholar; Philo-nenko, M., ‘La parabole sur la lampe (Luc 11 33–36) et les horoscopes qoumrâniens’, ZNW 79 (1988) 145–51, 146.Google Scholar
3 Family resemblance is typographically implicit in Bultmann, R., Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition (FRLANT 29; 5th ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1961) 77, 79–80, 86–7.Google Scholar See also Dupont, J., ‘Dieu et Mammon (MT 6,24: LC 16,13)’, Études sur les évangiles synoptiques 2 (ed. Dupont, J.; BEThL 70/B; Leuven: Leuven University, 1985) 551–67Google Scholar, 565, on formal similarity between Luke/Q 16.13 and Mark 2.21–22//; Allison, ‘Lamp’, 80, for ‘precisely the same structure’ (my emphasis) in Luke/16.13 and Luke/Q 11. 34–35; Philonenko, ‘Parabole’, 151 and n. 53, on the thought of the latter pair; S. Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich: Theologischer, 1972) 459–60, on relationship between Matt 6.24–25// and Matt 10.26//.
4 Several distinctions are implied here: (1) between the form of individual texts and genre as generative convention/grouping of texts (see Berger, K., Formgeschichte des neuen Testaments [Heidelberg: Quelle & Meyer, 1984] 9Google Scholar; Müller, M.-P., ‘Formgeschichte/ Formkritik I AT’, TRE 11 [1983] 271–85, 275–7Google Scholar; Köster, H., ‘Formgeschichte/Formkritik II NT’, TRE 11 [1983] 286–99, 286–7Google Scholar; and Petersen, N. R., ‘On the Notion of Genre in Via's “Parable and Example Story: A Literary-Structuralist Approach’”, Semeia 1 [1974] 134–81, 153)Google Scholar; (2) between historically paradigmatic genre and critically descriptive type (see Todorov, T., ‘Genres littéaires’, Dictionnaire encyclopédique des sciences du langage [Paris: du Seuil, 1972] 193–201, 193Google Scholar; and Petersen, esp. 136–43); and (3) between a text or its gist and genre as items of tradition (see Berger, K., Einführung in die Formgeschichte [UTB 1444; Tübingen: Francke, 1987] 115–29).Google Scholar
5 Gnome-use was prescribed and appreciated at all levels of acculturation in the world of Christian origins: (1) on analogy and continuity between non-Greek Wisdom and Hellenistic gnomology, see Küchler, M., Frühjüdische Weisheitstraditionen (OBO 26; Freiburg: Universitätsv./Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1979)Google Scholar; Berger, K., ‘Hellenistische Gattungen im neuen Testament’, ANRW 2 25/2 (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1984) 1031–1432, 1831–85, 1049–51Google Scholar; Kloppenborg, J. S., The Formation of Q (Studies in Antiquity and Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) esp. 263–306Google Scholar; (2) on Hellenistic gnomai in Rabbinic tradition see Lieberman, S., ‘How Much Greek in Jewish Palestine?’, Essays in Greco-Roman and Related Talmudic Literature (ed. Fischel, H. A.; New York: Ktav, 1977) 325–43, 330, 340–1Google Scholar; Fischel, H. A., Rabbinic Literature and Greco-Roman Philosophy (StPB 21; Leiden: Brill, 1973) 35–50Google Scholar; idem, ‘Story and History: Observations on Greco-Roman Rhetoric and Pharisaism’, Essays (ed. H. A. Fischel) 443–72, esp. 449–57Google Scholar; review by Neusner, J., The Rabbinic Traditions about the Pharisees before 70 1 (Leiden: Brill, 1971) 330–1Google Scholar; Fischel, H. A., ‘Studies in Cynicism and the Ancient Near East: The Transformation of a Chria’, Religion in Antiquity: Essays in Mem. of E. R. Goodenough (ed. Neusner, J.; Leiden: Brill, 1988) 372–411, 398–400, 409Google Scholar; (3) on gnomai in legal and diatribic oratory, see Lieberman, , ‘Greek?’, 336Google Scholar; Bultmann, R., Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die ky-nischstoische Diatribe (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1956) 59–61, 85–7, 103Google Scholar; Betz, H.-D., Galatians (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979) 291–2 and nn. 6, 7Google Scholar; (4) on gnomai as primary hand-writing exercises, see Marrou, H.-I., Histoire de l'éducation dans l'antiquité (2nd ed.; Paris: de Seuil, 1950) 217–18 and n. 8Google Scholar; Ziebarth, E., Aus der antiken Schule: Sammlung griechischen Texte … (Kleine Texte 65; 2nd ed.; Bonn, 1913) 6–9, 21–6Google Scholar; Bonner, S. F., Education in Ancient Rome (London: Methuen, 1977) 172–7, esp. fig. 20, p. 175, and fig. 10, p. 61Google Scholar; (5) on the persistence of gnome among basic public-speaking exercises (progymnasmata) see texts in ed. Spengel, L., Rhaetores Graeci (3 vols.; Leipzig: Teubner, 1853–1856)Google Scholar and discussion in Cairns, F., Generic Composition in Greek and Roman Poetry (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University, 1972) 75Google Scholar; Clark, D. L., Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education (New York: Columbia University, 1957) 177–212Google Scholar; Malherbe, A. J., Social Aspects of Early Christianity (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University, 1977) 56 and n. 72Google Scholar; (6) on gnome in the most advanced technical rhetoric, see Delarue, F., ‘La sententia chez Quin-tilien’, Formes bréves: de la γνώμη à la pointe: métamorphoses de la sententia = la Licorne 3 (1979) 97–124Google Scholar and my own Sententiae Jesu: Gnomic Sayings in the Tradition of Jesus (Oxford D.Phil, diss., 1988) esp. 54–5.Google Scholar
6 See Berger, K., ‘Gattungen’, 1049–74Google Scholar; idem, Formgeschichte, 13, 14, 50, 51, 62–7.
7 Piper, R. A., Wisdom in the Q-tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus (MSSNTS 61; Cambridge: University, 1988) 4–6.Google Scholar
8 Carlston, C. E., ‘Proverbs, Maxims and the Historical Jesus’, JBL 99 (1980) 87–105, 104.Google Scholar
9 Beardslee, W. A., ‘Saving One's Life by Losing It’, JAAR 47 (1979) 57–72Google Scholar; idem, ‘Uses of Proverbs in the Synoptic Gospels’, Interpretation 24 (1970) 61–73Google Scholar; idem, Literary Criticism of the NT (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969) 33–41.Google Scholar
10 Dupont, , ‘Dieu ou Mammon’, 552.Google Scholar
11 See n. 3 above.
12 Betz, , ‘Vision’, 77–8 and n. 29, cites only one instance.Google Scholar
13 Ibid., 73.
14 Philonenko, , ‘Parabole’, 146–7 and nn. 10–12Google Scholar. ‘Si le logion évangelique tire parti de Proverbes 20 27, c'est pour s'en distancer’ (147). See also Wettstein, J., Novum Testamentum Graecum (2 vols.; Amsterdam: Domerian, 1751; reprinted Graz: Akademische, 1962) 1.330–1.Google Scholar
15 Betz, , ‘Vision’, 85.Google Scholar
16 Pace Audet, J.-P., La Didaché: Instructions des apôtres (EtB; Paris: Gabalda, 1958) 173–4, 430.Google Scholar
17 Jeremias, J., ‘Matthäus 7,6a’, Abraham unser Vater, FS für O. Michel (AGSU 5; ed. Betz, O., Hengel, M., Schmidt, P.; Leiden/Köln: Brill, 1963) 271–5Google Scholar; Perles, F., ‘Zur Erklärung von Mt 7 6’, ZNW 25 (1926) 163–4Google Scholar; Black, M., An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts (3rd ed.; Oxford: Clarendon, 1967) 200–2Google Scholar; Schwarz, G., ‘Und Jesus sprach’: Untersuchungen zur aramäischen Urgestalt der Worte Jesu (BWANT 118; Stuttgartet alibi: Kohlhammer, 1985) 236–44Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, J. A., ‘The Study of the Aramaic Background of the NT’, A Wandering Aramaean (SBLMS 25; Missoula, Montana: Scholars, 1979) 1–27, 14–15.Google Scholar
18 Schulz, , Q, 463Google Scholar; Kloppenborg, , Formation, 206–7, 210Google Scholar; Piper, , Wisdom, 56–8.Google Scholar
19 Kloppenborg, , Formation, 215 and n. 180.Google Scholar
20 Gos. Thom. 33a; P. Oxy. 1.8; Kloppenborg, , Formation, 206Google Scholar; Bultmann, , Geschichte, 86–7.Google Scholar
21 Tension between beginning and end in Matt 10.26–7// is strong enough that Piper, Wisdom, 62, calls v. 27 ‘clearly an intrusion, perhaps added subsequently to the collection’, though he elsewhere consistently treats vv. 26–7 as a unit, 56–9; cf. Kloppenborg, , Formation, 210Google Scholar. Schulz, , Q, 463–5, argues to the contrary, that v. 27 is a deliberately created foil to v. 26.Google Scholar
22 Betz, , ‘Vision’, 75–7, 77–8, 84–7.Google Scholar
23 Philonenko, ‘Parabole’, is chiefly interested in Luke 11.36, but nevertheless acknowledges that already in the GQ, Luke 11.34–5, ‘la doctrine qoumrânienne … ait été radicalisée’ (151). Cf. Allison, , ‘Lamp’, 66–71.Google Scholar
24 Even if Luke/Q 11.36 were not someone's redactional addition to 11.34–5, v. 33 surely is; Allison, , ‘Lamp’, 71–3, 79Google Scholar; Kloppenborg, , Formation, 134–9Google Scholar; Piper, , Wisdom, 127–30Google Scholar; Schulz, , Q, 468–9.Google Scholar
25 ‘Dieu ou Mammon’, 552, cf. Bultmann's three-part analysis, Geschichte, 91, with his four-line typographical lay-out, 79.
26 ‘Parabole’, 146.
27 Allison, , ‘Lamp’, 73.Google Scholar
28 The double couplet, Matt 10.26b-27/Luke 12.2–3, is a partial exception; still, the second couplet clearly depends on the first for meaning within the GQ and is, in fact, lame in separate tradition. See n. 21 above, esp. Schulz.
29 See Kugel, J. L., The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale, 1981)Google Scholar; Collins, T., Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry (StP.SM 7; Rome: Biblical Institute, 1978)Google Scholar; O'Connor, M., Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1980)Google Scholar; Watson, W. G. E., Classical Hebrew Poetry (JSOT Supplement 26; Sheffield: JSOT, 1984) esp. 114–59Google Scholar; Berlin, A., The Dynamics of Biblical Parallelism (Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University, 1985)Google Scholar; Geller, S. A., ‘Theory and Method in the Study of Biblical Poetry’, JQR 73 (1982) 65–77Google Scholar; Greenstein, E. L., ‘How Does Parallelism Mean?’, A Sense of Text (JQR Supplement; Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1982) 41–70.Google Scholar
30 Except for Matt 10.26b-7//, the following are based on Bultmann's laying-out of the texts; see nn. 3 and 25 above.
31 Bailey, K. E., Poet and Peasant (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1976) 110–18, 110.Google Scholar
32 Piper, , Wisdom, 88.Google Scholar
33 Ibid., 93.
34 Ibid., 86–99.
35 This is implied even by Piper's wise refusal to assign 16.9–13 with his other ‘aphoristic collections’ unambiguously to Q, instead concluding only ‘that the contact with double-tradition material is in fact closer than is often recognized and that the collection not only preceded Luke but may also have been known to Matthew’ (Wisdom, 194). Recognition of Luke 16.10–12 and 13 as GQs confirms the former conclusion without prejudice to the latter.
36 Fitzmyer, , ‘(Lk 16:1–13)’, 29 and n. 11, 38–9.Google Scholar
37 Schulz, , Q, 459–60.Google Scholar
38 Kloppenborg, , Formation, 132 and nn. 152–6Google Scholar; Benoit, P. and Boismard, M.-E., Synopse des quatre évangiles en français (3 vols.; Paris: du Cerf, 1972) 2 § 201.Google Scholar
39 Dupont, J., ‘La Transmission des paroles de Jésus sur la lampe et la mesure dans Marc 4,21–25 et dans la tradition Q’, Logia – Les paroles de Jésus – The Sayings of Jesus: Mém. Joseph Coppens (ed. Delobel, J.; BEThL 59; Leuven: Leuven University, 1982) 201–36, 211–12Google Scholar; Piper, , Wisdom, 127–30Google Scholar; Allison, , ‘Lamp’, 72–3Google Scholar; Marshall, I. H., The Gospel of Luke (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978) 487, 489–90.Google Scholar
40 Schulz, , Q, 468–9 and n. 508Google Scholar; Benoit, and Boismard, , Synopse, 2 § 201.Google Scholar
41 Philonenko, , ‘Parabole’, 151.Google Scholar
42 Ibid., 145–6.
43 Marshall, , Luke, 213.Google Scholar
44 Taylor, V., The Gospel According to St. Mark (London: Macmillan, 1952) 214.Google Scholar
45 Schulz, , Q, 461–2Google Scholar; Kloppenborg, , Formation, 206–7 and n. 148Google Scholar; Piper, , Wisdom, 51, 56–9, 62; n. 21 above.Google Scholar
46 Piper, , Wisdom, 40–2 and esp. 131–3Google Scholar; Schulz, , Q, 449.Google Scholar
47 Berger, , Formgeschichte, 11Google Scholar; idem, Einführung, 156–61Google Scholar; Schmithals, W., Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1985) 306–11.Google Scholar
48 Greenstein, , ‘Parallelism’Google Scholar; Hoffstaedter, P., ‘Poetic Text Processing and its Empirical Investigation’, Poetics 16 (1987) 75–91Google Scholar; Meutsch, D., ‘Mental Models in Literary Discourse: Towards the Integration of Linguistic and Psychological Levels of Description’, Poetics 15 (1986) 307–31Google Scholar; Vipond, D. and Hunt, R. A., ‘Point-Driven Understanding: Pragmatic and Cognitive Dimensions of Literary Reading’, Poetics 13 (1984) 261–77Google Scholar; Tarlinskaya, M. G. and Teterina, L. M., ‘Verse-Prose-Meter’, Linguistics 12 (1974) 63–86Google Scholar; Austermühl, E., Poetische Sprache und lyrisches Verstehen (Heidelberg: Winter, 1981) 69–86.Google Scholar
49 Crossan, J. D., Raid on the Articulate: Comic Eschatology in Jesus and Borges (New York: Harper & Row, 1976) 73.Google Scholar
50 Meagher, J. C., Clumsy Construction in Mark's Gospel (Toronto Studies in Theology 3; New York: Mellon, 1979) 3–15.Google Scholar
51 Boomershine, T. E., ‘Peter's Denial as Polemic or Confession: The Implications of Media Criticism for Biblical Hermeneutics’, Semeia 39 (1987) 47–68.Google Scholar
52 Allison, , ‘Lamp’, 62, 81Google Scholar; Betz, , ‘Vision’, 86–7Google Scholar; Dupont, , ‘Dieu ou Mammon’, 552.Google Scholar
53 Compare the effect of hyperbole/paradox among Synoptic ‘proverbs’ (Beardslee, ‘Uses’, passim) with the deceptive serenity of the parables – Schillebeeckx, E., Jesus: An Experiment in Christology (New York: Crossroad, 1979)Google Scholar; Theißen, G., Soziologie der Jesusbe-wegung (4th ed.; TEH 194; München: Kaiser, 1985) 98Google Scholar: ‘jene angstfreie Atmosphäre, die in den Gleichnissen so deutlich hervortritt’.
54 Beardslee, , ‘Uses’, 70–1Google Scholar; Carlston, , ‘Maxims’, 91.Google Scholar
55 Though Matthaean redaction shows a greater affinity for the form than Lucan or even Q (Matt 10.24–5, cf. Luke 6.40; Matt 6.22–3, cf. Luke 11.33–36).
56 κύριος-δο
λος/δουλεύειν: Luke 16.13//, Matt 10.24//; μαμων
ς: Luke 16.13//, Luke 16.10–12; ῥήγνυμι: Mark 2.21–2//, Matt 7.6; φ
ς/φωτεινός-σκοτία/σκότος/σκοτεινός: Matt 6.22–3//, Matt 10.26–7//.
57 See Kloppenborg, , Formation, 4406Google Scholar; contra Gerhardsson, B., Memory and Manuscript (ASNU 22; Uppsala: Gleerup, 1961)Google Scholar; idem, Tradition and Transmission in Early Christianity (CNT 20; Lund/Copenhagen: Gleerup/Munksgaard, 1964)Google Scholar; idem, ‘Der Weg der Evangelientradition’, Das Evangelium und die Evangelien (ed. P. Stuhlmacher; WUNT 28; Tübingen: Mohr, 1983) 79–102Google Scholar; Riesenfeld, H., The Gospel Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1970) 1–29Google Scholar; Riesner, R., Jesus als Lehrer (WUNT 27; 2nd ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1984).Google Scholar
58 Petersen, , ‘Notion’, 136–9.Google Scholar
59 Ibid., 139, and n. 5 above.
60 Cf. Edwards, R. A., ‘The Eschatological Correlative as a Gattung in the NT’, ZNW 60 (1969) 9–20, 16–20, on the significance of inauthenticity.CrossRefGoogle Scholar