No Christology in the Q community

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Fri Mar 15, 2019 5:16 pm

Recently I read in H E Todt’s the Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, “The title of Messiah does not occur in the Q material” (p 302).

What does this mean for the development of beliefs about Jesus? If we assume that Jesus talked of a heavenly Son of Man who was coming soon, then it is possible I assume for early believers in the resurrection of Jesus to see Jesus as the Son of Man. I suppose it is possible to remove the word “Christ” from some of the kerygma in Acts. However, the Pauline letters are more problematic, I think it is difficult to make a case that Christ has been inserted to replace Jesus. Paul’s use of the word Christ makes it clear that he sees Jesus as the Messiah.

Dating then becomes an issue. I find it hard to accept that Paul wrote his letters after 65 CE. How early can we date the Q community? According to most Q scholars there are three layers in the Q material. How long would it take for each layer to develop and if we are looking at about 60 CE then why is there no use of the word Christ in the Q material?

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:18 pm

To Michael BG,
"if we assume" "it is possible" "I suppose it is possible". Sounds like unfounded assumptions.
According to most Q scholars there are three layers in the Q material. How long would it take for each layer to develop and if we are looking at about 60 CE then why is there no use of the word Christ in the Q material?
I do not think most scholars agree with the layering of Q.
And on this web page http://historical-jesus.info/q.html, I concluded that Q was written after Mark's gospel (with lot of evidence), with full knowledge of that gospel.

Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:17 am

It would seem possible that the Q community:
a/ Believed that Jesus was the Messiah/Christ
b/ Did not hold that Jesus claimed to be the Christ during his earthly ministry.

In this case the Q material would not be expected to include claims by Jesus to be the Messiah/Christ, depite the Q comminity believing that Jesus was the Messiah.

Andrew Criddle

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:09 am

Bernard Muller wrote:
Fri Mar 15, 2019 7:18 pm
To Michael BG,
"if we assume" "it is possible" "I suppose it is possible". Sounds like unfounded assumptions.
According to most Q scholars there are three layers in the Q material. How long would it take for each layer to develop and if we are looking at about 60 CE then why is there no use of the word Christ in the Q material?
I do not think most scholars agree with the layering of Q.
And on this web page http://historical-jesus.info/q.html, I concluded that Q was written after Mark's gospel (with lot of evidence), with full knowledge of that gospel.

Cordially, Bernard
I have set out my assumptions and have not provided any argument for them, so this discussion can focus on the lack of the title Messiah in Q, rather than questioning my assumptions.

If you wish me to question your case for Q’s use of Mark please create a new thread.
andrewcriddle wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:17 am
It would seem possible that the Q community:
a/ Believed that Jesus was the Messiah/Christ
b/ Did not hold that Jesus claimed to be the Christ during his earthly ministry.

In this case the Q material would not be expected to include claims by Jesus to be the Messiah/Christ, depite the Q comminity believing that Jesus was the Messiah.

Andrew Criddle
While it might be possible for your a and b to be true. I am not sure that the conclusion follows. I would still expect the Q community to read back into Jesus’ life and sayings something about being the Messiah.

I think the more likely explanation is that the Q community did not see Jesus as the Messiah but did see him as the Son of Man - a heavenly figure.

What I find surprising is that there can be two “Christian” communities where one clearly does see Jesus as the Messiah and another where they do not. How could it be possible for these two different views to exist within about 30 years of the crucifixion of Jesus both based on different ideas about a ‘saviour’ figure?

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1699
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:36 am

Michael BG wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:09 am
..................................................................
andrewcriddle wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 4:17 am
It would seem possible that the Q community:
a/ Believed that Jesus was the Messiah/Christ
b/ Did not hold that Jesus claimed to be the Christ during his earthly ministry.

In this case the Q material would not be expected to include claims by Jesus to be the Messiah/Christ, depite the Q comminity believing that Jesus was the Messiah.

Andrew Criddle
While it might be possible for your a and b to be true. I am not sure that the conclusion follows. I would still expect the Q community to read back into Jesus’ life and sayings something about being the Messiah.

I think the more likely explanation is that the Q community did not see Jesus as the Messiah but did see him as the Son of Man - a heavenly figure.

What I find surprising is that there can be two “Christian” communities where one clearly does see Jesus as the Messiah and another where they do not. How could it be possible for these two different views to exist within about 30 years of the crucifixion of Jesus both based on different ideas about a ‘saviour’ figure?
IF for example the Q community believed that Jesus was only revealed as Messiah at his resurrection, then their account of the pre-resurrection sayings of Jesus probably would not involve Jesus claiming to be the Messiah.

As a possible parallel, assuming the same author of Luke and Acts, there is more explicit Christology in Acts and in the first 2 chapters of Luke than in the main section of Luke. Early Christian writers IMO could distinguish between their Christology and their account of the earthly ministry of Jesus.

More generally, I am dubious about a Q community all of the beliefs of which are explicit in the surviving Q material.

Andrew Criddle

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2669
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by DCHindley » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:32 am

If my memory is not faulty, Kloppenborg, in The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (1987 & later editions), had noted that the sayings in the material common to the Gospels of Matthew & Luke was basically of the type that was common to pagan wisdom saying collections of the Ancient Near East.

Assuming Q is related to things Jesus actually said, Jesus may have formulated them to conform to the stylistic norms of his age (i.e., like any regional wisdom saying collection). If it did not conform to these norms, editors may have made changes to make it so.

Kloppenborg did stratify what he believed was a common source (Q), although vaguely. He later published in a more finished form of the stratification model in Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (2000). Burton Mack also published his own similar but not identical reconstruction of Q, with stratification, in The Lost Gospel: the Book of Q & Christian Origins (1993). They both identify material that they identify as editorial insertions.

One thing I noticed was that Kloppenborg and Mack proposed editorial insertions that tend to Judaize simpler wisdom sayings. This is vary similar in my mind to what is currently being proposed in the case of Marcion's Gospel & Pauling canon becoming Judaized into their NT forms. That kind of scenario does not ring true to me, however. Since the Christians who put together the NT clearly did not consider themselves Judeans, I think it more likely that they would have added editorial comments that Hellenized or neutralized the particular Judaisms of style.

I think that if Jesus was in fact Judean by ethnicity and environment, his sayings would already be authentic Judean productions that would have to be filed and polished to adapt them to a later of gentile development. Still, this does not appear to be what we have. Could some material in Q not be derived from Jesus, but simply put into his mouth? The sayings do not appear to be overtly Judean, but generic, certainly from a non-Judean environment. The final editor of Q may have wanted some collection of generic sayings to be identified with Jesus, when it was in fact not.

DCH

Seq.
Burton Mack
Mack's Strata
Kloppenborg, John
K.'s Strata
Lost Gospel Q (1993/1994) "The Sayings Gospel Q: Literary and Stratigraphic Problems" in Risto Uro, ed. Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q (1996)
Luke Luke
1 Lost Q1
2 Lost Q3
3 03:01-06 Q2a (3:2-4)
4 03:07-09 Q2a 3:7-9 Q2
5 03:16-17 Q2a 3:16bd Q2
6 3:16c Q2
7 3:17 Q2
8 04:01-13 Q3 4:1-13 Q3
9 [4:16] ?
10 06:20a Q1 <6:20a> Q1
11 06:20-23 Q1 6:20b-21 Q1
12
13 6:22-23b Q1
14 6:23c Q2r
15 (6:24-26) Q2
16 06:27-35 Q1 6:27-28,32-33, 35c Q1
17 (6:34-35b) Q1
18 6:29-30 Q1
19 (Q/Matt 5:41) Q1
20 6:31 Q1
21 06:36-38 Q1 6:36 Q1
22 6:37b, 38c Q1
23 (6:37c-38b) Q1
24 06:39-40 Q1 6:39b Q1
25 6:40 Q1
26 06:41-42 Q1 6:41-42 Q1
27 06:43-45 Q1 6:43-45 Q1
28
29
30
31 06:46-49 Q1 6:46 Q1
32 6:47-49 Q1
33 07:01-10 Q2a 7:1a Q2
34 7:1b-2, 6-10 Q2
35 07:18-23 Q2a 7:18-19, (20) Q2
36 7:22 Q2
37 07:24-28 Q2a 7:23 7:24-26a Q2
38 7:26b Q2
39 7:27 Q2
40 7:28a Q2
41 7:28b Q2
42 07:31-35 Q2a 7:31-32 Q2
43 7:33-35 Q2
44 09:57-62 Q1 9:57-58 Q1
45 9:59-60 Q1
46 (9:61-62) Q1
47 10:01-11 Q1 10:02 Q1
48 10:03 Q1
49 10:4-11 Q1
50 10:12 Q2a 10:12 Q2r
51 10:13-15 Q2a 10:13-15 Q2
52 10:16 Q2b 10:16 Q1
53 10:21-22 Q3 10:21 Q2
54 10:22 Q2
55 10:23-24 Q2b 10:23b-24 Q2
56
57 11:01-04 Q1 [11:1b] --
58 11:2-4 Q1
59 11:09-13 Q1 11:9-10 Q1
60
61 11:11-13 Q1
62 11:14-23 Q2a 11:14-18a Q2
63 11:19 Q2
64 11:20 Q2
65 (11:21-22) Q2
66 11:23 Q2b 11:23 Q2
67 11:24-26 Q2b 11:24-26 Q2
68 11:27-28 Q3 (11:27-28) Q2
69 11:16,29-32 Q2a 11:16, 29 Q2
70 11:30 Q2
71 11:33-35 Q2b 11:31-32 Q2
72 11:33 Q2
73 11:34-35 (36) Q2
74 11:39-52 Q2a 11:39b-44, 46-48 Q2
75 11:42d Q3
76 11:49-5 la Q2
77 11:51b Q2r
78 11:52 Q2
79 12:02-03 Q1 12:2-3 Q1
80
81
82 12:04-07 Q1 12:4-7 Q1
83 12:08-12 Q2b 12:8-9 Q2
84 12:10 Q2
85 12:11-12 Q1
86 12:13-21 Q1 (12:13-14) Q1
87 (12:16-21) Q1
88 12:22-31 Q1 12:22b-24, 26-28 Q1
89 12:25 Q1
90 12:29-31 Q1
91 12:33-34 Q1 12:33-34 Q1
92 12:39-40 Q2a 12:39 Q2
93
94 12:40 Q2
95 12:42-46 Q2a 12:42b-46 Q2
96 12:49-53 Q2a (12:49) Q2
97 12:51-53 Q2
98 12:54-56 Q2a 12:54-56 Q2
99 12:57-59 Q2a 12:57-59 Q2
100 13:18-21 Q1 13:18-19 Q1
101 13:20-21 Q1
102 13:24-27 Q2a 13:24 Q1
103 13:(25), 26-27 Q2
104 13:28-30 Q2a 13:28-29 Q2
105 13:30 Q2
106 13:34-35 Q3 13:34-35a Q2
107 13:35b Q2r
108 14:11;18:14 Q1 14:11/18:14 Q1
109 14:16-24 Q1 14:16-24 Q2
110 14:26-27;17:33 Q1 14:26 Q1
111 14:27 Q1
112 17:33 Q1
113 14:34-35 Q1 14:34-35 Q1
114 15:04-10 Q2b 15:4-7 Q1
115 (15:8-10) Q1
116 16:13 Q2b 16:13 Q1
117 16:16-18 Q3 16:16 Q2?
118 16:17 Q3
119 16:18 Q1
120 17:01-02 Q2b 17:1b Q1
121 17:02 Q1
122 17:03-04 Q2b 17:3b-4 Q1
123 17:06 Q2b 17:6b Q1
124 17:23-37 Q2a 17:23-24 Q2
125 17:37b Q2
126 17:26-27, 30 Q2
127 (17:28-29) Q2
128 17:34-35 Q2
129 19:11-27 Q2a 19:12-13,15b-26 Q2
130 22:28-30 Q3 22:28-30 Q2


Bernard Muller
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:47 am

to Michael BG,
I think the more likely explanation is that the Q community did not see Jesus as the Messiah but did see him as the Son of Man - a heavenly figure.
There are items in Q which set Jesus on earth, such as:

Centurion of Capernaum: Mt 8:5-13, Lk 7:1-10
Lk 7:1-10 "Now when he had ended all his sayings in the audience of the people, he entered into Capernaum.
And a certain centurion's servant, who was dear unto him, was sick, and ready to die.
And when he heard of Jesus, he sent unto him the elders of the Jews, beseeching him that he would come and heal his servant.
And when they came to Jesus, they besought him instantly, saying, That he was worthy for whom he should do this:
For he loveth our nation, and he hath built us a synagogue.
Then Jesus went with them. And when he was now not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to him, saying unto him, Lord, trouble not thyself: for I am not worthy that thou shouldest enter under my roof: ..."


John's Question and Jesus' Answer: Mt 11:2-6, Lk 7:18-23
Lk 7:18-23 "And the disciples of John shewed him of all these things.
And John calling unto him two of his disciples sent them to Jesus, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
When the men were come unto him, they said, John Baptist hath sent us unto thee, saying, Art thou he that should come? or look we for another?
And in that same hour he cured many of their infirmities and plagues, and of evil spirits; and unto many that were blind he gave sight.
Then Jesus answering said unto them, Go your way, and tell John what things ye have seen and heard; how that the blind see, the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, to the poor the gospel is preached.
And blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me.


Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Bernard Muller
Posts: 3234
Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:02 pm
Contact:

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Bernard Muller » Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:07 am

From http://historical-jesus.info/q.html:
"Scholars who are separating "Q" in different strata (acknowledging parts of "Q" as late) do not agree with each other (and have many critics!), coming up with different "solutions". One of those, John Kloppenborg, probably the best known in this field, considerably changed his "model" and acknowledged candidly:" I might say at this point that I regard my stratigraphic proposals in Formation [of Q] and ExQ ['Excavating Q'] as interesting bits of guesswork, like Pentateuchal criticism. If it actually helps clarify the final state of the text, fine. If it doesn't, drop it. If another model comes along to make better sense of the text, then drop or modify my model. We are playing a heuristic game here, not trying to recreate the composition process; that, epistemologically, is completely beyond our capabilities." (Synoptic-S, On-line Seminar, Oct. 2000)"
Cordially, Bernard
I believe freedom of expression should not be curtailed

Michael BG
Posts: 644
Joined: Thu Aug 13, 2015 8:02 am

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by Michael BG » Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:53 pm

andrewcriddle wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 5:36 am
IF for example the Q community believed that Jesus was only revealed as Messiah at his resurrection, then their account of the pre-resurrection sayings of Jesus probably would not involve Jesus claiming to be the Messiah.

As a possible parallel, assuming the same author of Luke and Acts, there is more explicit Christology in Acts and in the first 2 chapters of Luke than in the main section of Luke. Early Christian writers IMO could distinguish between their Christology and their account of the earthly ministry of Jesus.

More generally, I am dubious about a Q community all of the beliefs of which are explicit in the surviving Q material.

Andrew Criddle
In Luke there is Christology and the word Christ appears 12 times, if we exclude chapters 1,2 and 24, it appears 8 times – 3:15, 4:41, 9:20, 20:41, 22:67, 23:2, 23:35 and 23:39. Acts I think is a little longer and the word Christ appears 26 times.

I don’t think Mark, Matthew, Luke or John distinguish their Christology between before crucifixion and afterwards.

DCHindley,
I am very surprised about how much you put into Q2 for Kloppenborg. I will look again at my copy of Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel and the notes I have made and come back with a fuller response tomorrow.

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 7:47 am
to Michael BG,
I think the more likely explanation is that the Q community did not see Jesus as the Messiah but did see him as the Son of Man - a heavenly figure.
There are items in Q which set Jesus on earth, such as:

Centurion of Capernaum: Mt 8:5-13, Lk 7:1-10


John's Question and Jesus' Answer: Mt 11:2-6, Lk 7:18-23


Cordially, Bernard
Please accept my apologies for your misunderstanding of what I wrote. I was not saying that the Q community only saw Jesus as a heavenly figure, nor was I saying that the Q community didn’t use the term Son of Man for the earthly Jesus, “Foxes have holes” (Lk 9:58 / Mt 8:20) comes to mind. My point was much narrower – that the title Son of Man refers to a heavenly figure in Daniel and Enoch and maybe in 4 Ezra. And Q uses the term Son of Man in this way.

Bernard Muller wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 8:07 am
From http://historical-jesus.info/q.html:
"Scholars who are separating "Q" in different strata (acknowledging parts of "Q" as late) do not agree with each other (and have many critics!), coming up with different "solutions". One of those, John Kloppenborg, probably the best known in this field, considerably changed his "model" and acknowledged candidly:" I might say at this point that I regard my stratigraphic proposals in Formation [of Q] and ExQ ['Excavating Q'] as interesting bits of guesswork, like Pentateuchal criticism. If it actually helps clarify the final state of the text, fine. If it doesn't, drop it. If another model comes along to make better sense of the text, then drop or modify my model. We are playing a heuristic game here, not trying to recreate the composition process; that, epistemologically, is completely beyond our capabilities." (Synoptic-S, On-line Seminar, Oct. 2000)"
Cordially, Bernard
That is a very interest post Bernard. I remember reading Kloppenborg write something along the lines that the editorial process does not mean that the things he considers at the earlier stage are actually earlier traditions than ones he considers have been added. Maybe I’ll find the quote tomorrow.

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2669
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: No Christology in the Q community

Post by DCHindley » Sun Mar 17, 2019 5:42 am

Michael BG wrote:
Sat Mar 16, 2019 6:53 pm
DCHindley,

I am very surprised about how much you put into Q2 for Kloppenborg. I will look again at my copy of Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel and the notes I have made and come back with a fuller response tomorrow.
Well, I'm sure I pieced it together from sources, which I think I referenced, but may also include info obtained from other members of the Synoptic-l e-list. I used to get weekly summaries, but , and out of the blue these, for some reason, did not contain my own posts. My inquiries to Mark Goodacre weren't helpful ("Its something to do with your group member settings" but there was no setting for this, which made me feel it was due to a specific moderator's fiddling) so I unsubscribed several years ago. But yeah, I had Formation of Q, Excavating Q and some sort of detailed summary of Kloppenborg's essay published in Risto Uro's book (I might have a photocopy).

Formation of Q only suggests the parts he thinks are redactional strata in his literary analysis, but strata was not summarized as a table IIRC.

There is a web page that contains an English translation of the verses Burton Mack attributes to Q, with different formatting for Q1, Q2, & Q3, at:
https://www.tonyburke.ca/wp-content/upl ... Q-Text.pdf

I could not find a stratified English translation of Kloppenborg's Q online.

DCH

Post Reply