There is no actual document of this Q material, nor is there any reference in early Christian writing to a written source of Jesus' sayings that existed independent of the four New Testament Gospels.
As a result, conservatives have generally been cautious about making too much of the Q hypothesis, especially when we have seen the speculative hypothesis employed in the rewriting of early Christian beliefs. Some scholars have proposed that the remnants of Q in Matthew and Luke reveal that there was an earlier community of Jesus people who simply saw him as a teacher of this-worldly wisdom, and only later was the Q material adapted to weave the more elaborate stories of Jesus' redemptive death, resurrection, and promised return.
That's why I found Larry Hurtado's treatment of the Q hypothesis helpful. I've been blogging through his book, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity. You can find my first two installments hereand here. Hurtado's book challenges the conventional belief among liberal academics that views of Jesus as divine were later, secondary developments. Instead, as he shows, devotion to Jesus as divine burst out among the earliest Christians within years (days) following Jesus' execution. Hurtado contends that the Q source that many scholars identify behind Matthew and Luke actually reinforce this view instead of undermine it.
So, grant that there is a prior written source of Jesus' sayings that Matthew and Luke depended on. And grant (for the moment) that these sayings did not contain reference to Jesus' crucifixion as redemptive or his resurrection or his promised return. "The question," Hurtado points out, "is what we are to make of this."
Liberal scholars make too much of the silence. In order words, it is too much to assume that the community who produced and circulated a written collection of Jesus' sayings had no other views of Jesus than those contained in the sayings. "Q was not intended to communicate all the Jesus tradition known and meaningful for redactors and readers," Hurtado writes.
Besides, what are we to make of the fact that Matthew and Luke chose to incorporate Q so fully? Most scholars, even those most speculative of what Q contains and what it means, agree that all of Q is found in the New Testament Gospels. Obviously the Gospel writers found nothing objectionable about the material, nor did they regard those who circulated the Q material as "competitors" with an alternate view of Jesus. As covered in my last post, Paul's writings give evidence that a body of earliest believers viewed Jesus as divine, and his death as redemptive, and his resurrection as real, and his return as anticipated. If those who composed Q were contemporaries of this earliest community of believers, and yet the "Q people" had radically different views than the traditional Christians, why were traditional Christians happy to incorporate all of the Q people's written material into their own books?
Instead, "it fits the actual reception history of Q better to suppose that it may have been prepared from the first for a wide readership, and may not (ever?) have been a document produced for one particular type or circle of the early Christian movement....I contend that the contents of Q align it with the beliefs, themes, and interests reflected in other Christian texts of the first century."
In addition to making too much of what Q does not contain, liberal scholars draw the wrong conclusions about what it does contain. "I must contend immediately that Q presents a clear and sustained emphasis on the importance of Jesus. I am unable, therefore, to consent to the notion that the focus in Q is not so much on Jesus, but more on the kingdom of God....The decision about Jesus' validity is the central question [in the Q material], for on it hangs the chance of one's participation in the kingdom of God."
Hurtado provides a helpful survey of the ways the acknowledged Q material presents a high view of Jesus. After this review, the case seems very weak for those who would claim that the Q material reveals a simpler, earlier community of Jesus people who regarded Jesus as merely a teacher of this-world wisdom.
Further, instead of being a random collection of this-world wisdom sayings without any interest in a narrative flow, the Q material has "an implicit narrative" that is "wholly concerned with Jesus."
What we have [in Q] is a text that presumes a narrative of Jesus that proceeds from an announcement of his appearance, through his introduction and activities, the formation of a following, opposition to him that includes his death by crucifixion, his postmortem vindication and continuing authority for the intended readers, and the promise of a future triumphant manifestation. I submit that those who composed Q fully expected readers to bring this 'story,' which we might term the 'enabling narrative,' to their reading of this text.
And, of course, eventually Matthew and Luke put this 'enabling narrative' into written form around the Q sayings. Hurtado says:
The alleged 'silence' of Q, I contend, has much more to do with the genre and purposes of its composer(s), and is far less an indication of their ignorance or the limits of their beliefs. Q is a remarkably important (even if hypothetical) text. The collecting and use of Jesus' sayings led to the production of this significant literary product that appears to have been widely circulated and appreciated in the first century. Then, through its incorporation into the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, it was bequeathed to all subsequent Christian tradition, serving to provide centuries of believers with some of their most familiar and treasured traditions of the teaching of their Master and Lord.
Next Up: The Gospels
Note: In my posts I refer to scholars as "liberal" or "radical." These are my own words and not the words Hurtado uses. He chooses to address his book as a scholar to scholars, avoiding polemical labels. This is admirable, and perhaps will gain his book a wider audience. I'm using the labels as a sort of short-hand in my posts. I grant the labels can generate more heat than light.
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
No comments:
Post a Comment