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
The familiar but somewhat puzzling designation of Jesus as ‘a glutton and a drunkard’ comes at the end of a sequence in the Q tradition which contrasts the respective roles of Jesus and John the Baptist. Perceptions of the force and import of this appellation are linked with the context in which one understands it to have been uttered. A currently vocal scholarly contingent of those engaged in the study of Q insists that the section which runs from Luke 7.18 to 35 is composed of a random assemblage of pericopes of various types, including chriae, parables, commentaries thereon, and random sayings. There is said to be neither a coherent representation of John and Jesus in Q as we have it, nor a consistent evaluation of their respective roles.
1 This pericope in Q is seen by Ben Witherington as marking the conclusion of the first main section of Q, which he describes as beginning with the announcement of the ‘sage's coming’ (Luke 3.2–9,15–17) and concluding with his rejection by ‘this generation’. In Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994/Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1994).Google Scholar
2 Matt 11.2–19; Luke 7.18–35. In what follows, all references to Q are given in terms of Lukan numbering.
3 The healing of the centurion's slave derives from Q (Matt 8.5–13; Luke 7.1–10), but the story of the widow's son comes from Luke's own source (Luke 7.11–17).
4 The section of Q dealing with Jesus and John differs in the Matthean and Lukan versions in several details: Matt places 7.29–30 as the conclusion to his distinctive Parable of the Two Sons (Matt 21.28–32). Matthew includes in the section on Jesus and John a saying (Matt 11.12–13) located by Luke at 16.16 in a triad of sayings, two of which deal with obedience to the Law (16.17–18). Matthew also adds a declaration about the identity of John and Elijah, which is repeated in 17.9–13, where he is drawing on Mark (9.9–13).
5 John Kloppenborg, S., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).Google Scholar
6 Kloppenborg, Formation, 107–8.
7 Kloppenborg, Formation, 168.
8 Kloppenborg, Formation, 169.
9 An expanded version of this identification is present in Mark 9.9–13, which is reproduced in Matt 17.9–13, and which is probably reflected in the Matthean addition (11.14).
10 Kloppenborg, Formation, 109.
11 G. Schrenk, Piβιάζομαι, TDNT 1.610–11.
12 Kloppenborg, Formation, 114–15.
13 Sponsored by the Society of Biblical Literature.
14 Kloppenborg also thinks that Matthew's version of the saying about violence that will accompany the coming of the kingdom (Matt 11.12–13) is more original than Luke 16.16. But he ignores the apocalyptic dimensions of this prophecy as well.
15 The major models of community operative in this period are traced in my study, Who Are the People of God? Models of Community in Judaism and Early Christianity (New Haven and London: Yale University, 1995).Google Scholar
16 The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to the Jewish Matrix of Christianity (New York: Crossroad, 1987)Google Scholar; Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1993).Google Scholar
17 Collins notes that in a few texts ‘holy ones’ refers to the people of Israel (Ps 34.9; 1QM 10.10), but that in most of the passages in which the term occurs, it means ‘angels’ (Dan 4.10, 14, 20; 8.13; 1 Enoch 14.22–3).
18 The basis for assigning this date includes the reference to the Parthian invasion (which took place about 40 BCE) and the allusion to the hot springs, which probably reflects Herod's effort to achieve healing for himself (Josephus Antiquities 17.6.5).
19 Collins, Apocalyptic Imagination, 148–50.
20 In his commentary on Daniel, Collins proposes a slight emendation of the MT here, but either reading of the text points to the destruction of Antiochus Epiphanes and the resulting liberation of God's faithful people (Daniel, 399).
21 See discussion by Fitzmyer, J., The Gospel according to Luke I–IX (New York: Doubleday, 1981) 373–4.Google Scholar
22 Details are provided by Ehud Netzer in the Anchor Bible Dictionary 3.737–9.
23 Luke alone develops the motif of the inclusion of ‘all flesh’ in God's saving action. This is done by extending the quotation from Isa 40 at John's initial appearance to include all humanity (Luke 3.4–6), and by picturing John as baptizing Roman soldiers and tax-collectors (Luke 3.11–14).
24 Kloppenborg et al., cited p. 377 above.
25 In his article on βιάζομαι, Schrenk (TDNT 1.609–13) seeks to demonstrate that Matthew's is the more original version of the saying.
26 Detailed and convincing analyses of Matthew as the product of a community in conscious and vicious competition with emergent rabbinic Judaism in the period after the destruction of the temple have been offered by Overman, J. Andrew in Matthew's Gospel and Formative Judaism (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990)Google Scholar and by Anthony Saldarini, J., in Matthew's Christian-Jewish Community (Chicago and London: University of Chicago, 1994).Google Scholar
27 Polag, A., in Die Christologie der Logienquelle (Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1977) 102Google Scholar, includes Matt 19.28, where ‘Son of Man’ appears but is lacking in the Lukan parallel (22.28–30). The latter text is discussed below, however.
28 Seriously inappropriate is the traditional scholarly classification of Son of Man sayings: (1) present, (2) future, and (3) suffering Son of Man in the Q tradition.
29 ‘Now’ occurs twice in 6.21 and twice in 6.25.
30 The most likely candidates for the category of instructions for individuals are 11.24–6, 33–6; 12.33–4; 16.13, 17, 18. The inappropriateness of declaring sapiential wisdom in aphoristic mode of expression as characteristic of Q is self-evident.
31 Theiβen, G., The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (tr. L. M. Maloney; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991) 205.Google Scholar
32 Witherington, Jesus the Sage, 226.
33 Horsley, R., in ‘Questions about Redactional Strata and Social Relations Reflected in Q’, in SBL Seminar Papers 1989 (Atlanta: Scholars).Google Scholar
34 Edwards, R. A., A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy and Wisdom (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976) 147–9.Google Scholar
35 Horsley's critique is offered in a pair of essays, ‘Wisdom Justified by All Her Children: Examining Allegedly Disparate Traditions in Q’, in SBL Seminar Papers 1994, 733–51. But among early champions of a non-apocalyptic tradition is H. Koester, for example, who earlier advanced the thesis that the Gospel of Thomas was the original version of Q, which was later converted by the insertion of apocalyptic features (HTR 73 [1980] 105–30)Google Scholar. He has subsequently retreated somewhat from this position, asserting that the original Q did mix sapiential wisdom and eschatological statements, but he still assumes that a later editor imposed apocalyptic features on this tradition. He attributes to later tradition the announcement of judgment on this generation; (2) the apocalyptic expectation of Jesus' return; (3) the demarcation between Jesus and John the Baptist (in Ancient Christian Gospels [London: SCM/Philadelphia: TPI, 1990] 150, 162).Google Scholar
36 Collins, A. Y., in ‘The Son of Man in the Sayings Source’, To Touch the Text: Festschrift for J. A. Fitzmyer (New York: Crossroad, 1989) 369–99.Google Scholar
37 Horsley, ‘Wisdom Justified’, 741.
38 Horsley, ‘Wisdom Justified’, 748.
39 Horsley, R., in ‘Q and Jesus: Assumptions, Approaches, and Analyses’, Semeia 55 (1991) 175–209.Google Scholar
40 Fitzmyer, for example, in his monumental commentary, Luke I–IX, dismisses the proposal of a connection, since the Greek of Q differs from the LXX of Deuteronomy.
41 2 Chron 24.20–2. He is wrongly identified in Matt 23.35 as ‘Son of Barachiah’, which fits the prophet, Zechariah (Zech 1.1).
42 As J. A. Fitzmyer notes, the saying was attributed by some of the patristic writers to Jesus, as the embodiment of divine wisdom (Gospel of LukeX–XXIV [New York: Doubleday, 1985] 950).Google Scholar
43 The pattern of the prophets' death at the hands of recalcitrant Israelites was pointed out by Steck, O.H. in Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (WMANT 23; Neukirchen: Neukirchener, 1967)Google Scholar. Wholly unsuitable is the theory of the Jesus Seminar and others that in this Q passage Jesus is affirming the supposedly Cynic-Stoic attitude toward death. The principle, allegedly based on Socrates, that ‘nothing can prevent one from holding fast to what is right’ and that, by dying, one exemplifies ‘the true student of philosophy’, is now attributed to Jesus. So Seeley, D., in ‘Jesus' Death in Q’, NTS 38 (1992) 222–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar