The "Messianic" Implications of the Q Material Author(s): Edward P. Meadors Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 118, No. 2 (Summer, 1999), pp. 253-277 Published by: The Society of Biblical Literature Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3268006 Accessed: 09/06/2010 15:54 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use. Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=sbl. Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed page of such transmission. JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The Society of Biblical Literature is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Biblical Literature.

http://www.jstor.org

THE "MESSIANIC"IMPLICATIONS

OF THE Q MATERIAL EDWARD P. MEADORS TaylorUniversity,Upland,IN 46989-1001 In the past twenty-fiveyears scholarsdevoted to the study of Q have abandoned the concept of a single homogeneous Q source in favor of a developing multistaged compositionaltheory. Qhas become an archaeologicaldig promising to reveal successive layers of primitive Qcommunity thought about Jesus and his teaching. Technicalterms such as Q 1, Q 2, Q 3, QMt, QLk, the wisdom

stratumof Q, the propheticstratum,the apocalypticstratum,andso forthhave thus now become common among those who write on the subject. Correlating with this idea of a growing, developing Qcomposition is the concept that developmental or redactional stages may also be detected in the christological

of the editorsof Q andthe churchesor communitiestheyrepreunderstanding sent.1 Thus, most recent reconstructions of Q attribute the presence of the

1 Athanasius Polag (Die Christologie der Logienquelle [WMANT 45; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1977) divides Q into three developmental stages: (1) the original collection (Die Kernstiicke);(2) the secondarily added major collection (Die Hauptsammlung);and (3) the final redaction of Q (Spdt Redaktion).Polag assumes that the pedigree of the first two stages traces back to the historicalJesus, but the materialhe categorizes as late redactionhe attributesto the creative work of the Q community. Walter Schmithalsdivides Q into two layers of tradition,which he dubs Q1 and Q (Einleitungin die drei ersten Evangelien [Berlin:de Gruyter, 1985] 384-404). The original Q layer lacked christologicalcontent altogether,while the editors of the second phase creatively painted Jesus as Son of Man and Son of God. John Kloppenborgreconstructsthree Q compositional layers purportedly based on details of form/genre, not pedigree or content. See, however, "The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the HistoricalJesus,"HTR 89 (1996) 307-44, where he concludes, "No less than Mark,Q is invention.... To some degree, therefore, the historical Jesus recedes behind the respective rhetqricsof Q and Mark"(p. 344). Following familiarconventions of form criticism, Kloppenborg assumes that three separate social situations were responsible for producing Q's three hypothetical layers of redaction. He attributes all the Son of Man sayings and all the material dealing with Jesus' relation to John to his hypothetical second stage of Q's development, while attributingthe Son of God materialin the temptation narrativeto Q's final "proto-biographical"stratum (see J. Kloppenborg, "LiteraryConvention, Self-Evidence and the Social History of the Q People," Semeia 55 [1992] 77-102, esp. 80-81). Burton Mack

253

254

Journalof BiblicalLiterature

name "Son"in Luke 10:21-22//Matt 11:25-27 and the name "Son of God" in the temptation narrativesto a middle or late stage of Q redaction.2 Similarly, scholars commonly attribute Son of Man sayings, wisdom sayings, and prophetic sayings to different, often mutuallyexclusive, stages of Q's christological maturationin a sequence ordered accordingto the judgments of the individual scholars themselves.3 These related hypotheses have converged to create the

contemporary paradigmthat Q evolvedfromone stageof developmentto the next, so that the final composition of Qdiffered significantlyfrom the first, both in its purpose and in its understandingof Jesus. This evolving sophisticationof Qhas given rise to a developing consensus that Q, in all of its supposed stages,

essentiallywasnot interestedin the questionof Jesus'messiahship.The following comments by Marcus Borg, Burton Mack, and Christopher Tuckett are representative: It was laterwriterswho addedthe detailsaboutJesus'life and deaththat becamethe bedrockof Christianbelief.Jesusin the LostGospelQ is neither Christnorthe Messiahbut ratherthe lastin a longlineof Jewishprophets.4 It was Markwho introduced"highchristological" characterization into the Jesustraditions,andit is extremelyimportantto note that.In the materials thatreflectpre-Markan traditions,suchas Q, somepronouncement stories, the miraclestorychains,someparables,andso forth,Jesusis not referredto as "Christ" (orMessiah),muchless as the Sonof Godfamiliarfromthe writof Paul.5 ings is neverusedin Q. Thisis rathersurprising TheJewishtermxptor6rcMessiah giventhe evidentlyveryearlyuse of the termto referto Jesus(e.g.in the prePauline"credal" statementin 1 Cor15:3)andthe wayin whichthe termthen becameso firmlyattachedto Jesus,bothinsideandoutsideJewishChristiandevises five stages of Q development with its christologicalcontent coming into existence in its final stage (The Lost Gospel [Rockport,MA:Element, 1993]). 2 Exceptions include Paul Hoffmann, who seriously considers the origin of Luke 10:21//Matt 11:25 "in the life of Jesus" ("The Redaction of Q and the Son of Man,"in The Gospel Behind the Gospels [ed. Ronald A. Piper; Leiden: Brill, 1995] 180), and C. M. Tuckett, who locates the temptation narrative at an earlier stage of Q's development (Q and the History of Early Christianity [Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1996] 420). 3 Most notably M. Sato (Q und Prophetie [WUNT 2/29; Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1988]) and John Kloppenborg (The Formationof Q[Philadelphia:Fortress, 1989]). For a critique of the stratification of Q, see H. A. Attridge, "Reflectionson Research into Q," Semeia 55 (1992) 223-34; R. A. Horsley, "Questions about Redactional Strataand Social Relations Reflected in Q," in SBL Seminar Papers (Atlanta:Scholars Press, 1989) 186-203; C. M. Tuckett, "On the Stratificationof Q: A Response," Semeia 55 (1992) 213-22. 4 Marcus Borg, Mark Powelson, and Ray Riegert, The Lost Gospel Q (Berkeley: Ulysses Press, 1996) 27-28. 5 Burton Mack, "The Christ and Jewish Wisdom," in The Messiah (ed. J. H. Charlesworth; Minneapolis:Fortress, 1992) 214.

Meadors:"Messianic" Implicationsof Q

255

ity, thatit becamealmostjust anotherpropername(as in "JesusChrist"or "ChristJesus",or evenas in 1 Cor15:3just"Christ")....It wouldperhapsbe ratherbold to deduce fromthe non-useof the term in Q that the idea of was actuallyproblematicfor the Q Christians.NeverJesus'"Messiahship" of the term servesto distinguishQ fromPaul theless,the non-appearance and all the evangelistsand makesQ'sprofileratherdistinctivein termsof Christology.6 Such nonmessianic assessments correctly draw attention to the fact that in Q Jesus is not the object of explicit christological proclamation. The technical term "Messiah/Christ"does not exist in Q, nor do organizing faith statements like Rom 1:1-7 or John 1:1-18. Nevertheless, granting Q's silence, few deny that Q has an important contribution to make to the study of Christology,or, perhaps more properly,the forces that generated Christology.For Q not only attributes to Jesus the names "Son of Man," "Son of God," and "the coming one," but also maintains a clear and consistent witness to Jesus' unparalleled authority as judge, healer, exorcist, commissioner of disciples, determiner of people's fate in or out of the kingdom of God, and performer of acts that signal the promised arrivalof God's saving work among humankind.Thus, the question of how to appraise Q's Christology in light of its apparent silence on the matter of Jesus' "messianic"identity. Is Q's omission of the term "Messiah/ Christ"forceful evidence of its transmitters'ignorance, disinterest, or perhaps even rejection of Jesus' "messianic"identity, as the above authors seem to intimate? In what follows, I shall argue that this is not the case. I shall contend that Jesus' "messianic"identity does indeed figure into the christological equation of Q. I shall describe what I believe to be the messianic profile of the Q material and develop an argument for the coherence of variousindependent sayings of Jesus in Q that have "messianic"implications. Moreover, I shall attempt to justify the historicaljudgment that these "messianic"sayings go as far back in the Synoptic traditionas objective historicalinquirycan take us. I shall proceed as follows. First, I shall define what I mean by "Messiah." Second, I shall comment on the Q material that implies Jesus' "messianic" identity by describing him as a figure anointed by the Holy Spiritto accomplish feats of salvationpreviouslyassociatedwith the "end-time"work of God. Third, I shall examine Q material that attests Jesus' "messianic"authority.Fourth, I shall note the significance of the "messianic"banquet theme in Q and its relevance to the present discussion. Fifth, I shall assess the epithets attributed to Jesus in Q-Son of God, Son of Man, and "the coming one"-and shall argue that these names were interrelated and were capable of being employed con6Christopher Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 214. A similarresistance to a messianic interpretationof Q characterizesLeif E. Vaage (Galilean Upstarts:Jesus' First Followers According to Q [Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1994] 90-91), who criticizes M. Hengel for interpreting Luke 9:59-60//Matt 8:21-22 in light of Jesus' messianic authority.

256

Journalof BiblicalLiterature

currently for their "messianic"emphasis. And finally,I shall argue that wisdom, prophecy, eschatology, and apocalyptic were mutually inclusive means of expressing Jesus' "messianic"authority and are today not only faulty lines for demarcating successive layers of Q redaction but actually blend together in a manner that signals Jesus' "messianic" status due to parallels in other preChristian Jewish writings that share the same agglomeration of linguistic expressions in independent "messianic"pronouncements.7 I. The Term "Messiah" Recent studies of Second Temple Judaismhave clarifiedthat there was not a coherent and normative messianology shared by all Jews of the pre-Christian and early Christian eras.8 That such was the case should not be surprising in view of the fact that the term "the Messiah"does not occur at all in the OT and only rarely in Second Temple Judaism.9Recent studies of "messianism"and "messianic movements" have therefore moved to correct the false assumption that "messianic" features, expectations, and figures appear frequently with lucid definition in the OT and in the literatureof the Second Temple era. The semantic domain of "messianic"studies thus has narrowedto include only texts that actually contain the words "anointed"or "Messiah."The clarifications of Marinus De Jonge and RichardA. Horsley are importantcorrectives: In the analysisof the literaturethatconcernsus here,we shouldemploythe words"anointed" and"Messiah" onlywherethe sourcesuse the correspondshould ing wordin theirown language.Similarly,"'messianic' expectation" the of a redeemer who denote is called only actually expectation "Messiah."'o The currentmove is towardgreaterprecisionin the conceptualapparatus utilizedin attemptsto understandbiblicalliteratureandhistory.Use of the terms"messiah/messianic" wouldthusbe confinedto literaryandhistorical or its equivalentoccurs, phenomema(a)wherethe Hebrewterm"messiah" (b) whereanothertermthatcan be clearlyestablishedas closelyassociated formis evidentthathaspresocial-historical occurs,or (c) wherea particular with been associated the term." viously 7 For an excellent treatment of recent definitions of "apocalyptic"and "apocalypse,"see David E. Aune, Revelation 1-5 (WBC 52A; Waco:Word, 1997) lxxvii-lxxxviii. 8 An exception to this consensus is W. Horbury,who asserts that there was a single normative messianology in the pre-Christian era ("The Messianic Associations of the 'Son of Man,"'JTS 36 [1985] 34-55). 9 On the development of the messianic concept in the OT, see J. H. Charlesworth, "From Messianology to Christology:Problems and Prospects,"in The Messiah, ed. Charlesworth,3-35, esp. 10-13; J. J. M. Roberts, "The Old Testament's Contribution to Messianic Expectations,"in The Messiah, ed. Charlesworth,39-51. 10MarinusDe Jonge, "Messiah,"ABD 4.778. " RichardA. Horsley, "MessianicMovements in Judaism,"ABD 4.791.

Meadors: "Messianic"Implicationsof Q

257

Strict adherence to De Jonge'sdefinition and Horsley'srestriction (a) favors a nonmessianic appraisalof Q simply because of the absence of the term "messiah." But, as I hope to demonstrate, this is a misleading criterion when used alone and applied to the Q material,where Horsley'srestrictions(b) and (c) are more germane and reasonable.Jewish "messianism"finds its conceptual origin in texts that themselves do not use the term "messiah"in the technical sense that De Jonge and Horsley demand. Emphasized at the font of the messianic tradition were the authority,functions, and endowments of present and future anointed ones, not titles. Though titularusage varies (and sometimes is not present at all), a number of texts make important contributions to the eventual messianic expectation that an anointed figure would come in the future to judge the wicked (Isa 11:4;Pss. Sol. 17; cf. 4 Ezra 12:33;2 Apoc. Bar 40:1-2), deliver God's people (Isa 11:10-11; 4 Ezra 12:34; cf. Zech 9:9), reign in a blessed kingdom (Pss. Sol. 17:4;2 Apoc. Bar.40:3;2 Sam 7:12-13), gather into a renewed Jerusalem the dispersed people of Israel (Isa 11:11-12; Pss. Sol. 17:26), come from the familyof David (Isa 11:1;Pss. Sol. 17:4;Ezek 34:23-24), and bear the attributesof the Spiritof the Lord (Isa 11:2;Pss. Sol. 17:37)-wisdom (Isa 11:2; Pss. Sol. 17:29, 35, 37) and righteousness (Isa 11:5; Pss. Sol. 17:29, 37). By absorbingmessianic functions eclectically from multiple sources, Pss. Sol. 17-18, in particular,demonstrates that messiahship existed as a synthetic concept well before the rise of ChristianChristologies. The question of Jesus' messianic identity in Q remains open, despite absence of the title, because many of the noted "messianic"endowments and functions find parallels in the character and work of Jesus in the Q material. This is legitimate. If Horsley is correct that "the occurrence of the term [Messiah] does not necessarily entail the presence of the concept, and the presence of the concept does not necessarily imply the existence of a movement,"then we may suspect that the converse may also be true in some cases-the presence of the concept does not necessarily entail the occurrence of the term-which is in fact the case for Isaiah 11!12Therefore, paying careful attention to verifiable OT and Second Temple era messianic features and functions, I shall use the term "messiah," aware of its limitations, in its basic etymological sense to denote an expected "anointed"deliverer (savior)and judge. The Jesus of Q, I hope to show, fits the description without bearing the name. II. The Implicit "Messianology"of Q With this working definition, can we say that Jesus emerges as a messianic figure in the Q material?Consider the evidence. Our investigationtakes us first to Luke 7:22-23//Matt 11:4-6: R. A. Horsley, "'Messianic' Figures and Movements in First-Century Palestine," in The Messiah, ed. Charlesworth,277. 12

258

Journalof BiblicalLiterature Go andreportto Johnwhatyouhaveseen andheard:the blindreceivesight, the lamewalk,the lepersarecleansed,andthe deafhear,the deadareraised up, the poorhavethe gospelpreachedto them.Andblessedis he who keeps fromstumblingoverme.

As is well known, in making this pronouncement Jesus conflates the preaching role of the Isaianic herald of good news (Isa 61:1-3) with the healing work of God that was expected to take place on the eschatological Day of the Lord (Isa 29:18; 35:5-6; 42:18; and 26:19). The Jewish pedigree of this Q passage is demonstrated by the Qumranfragment4Q521, which conflates the exact same eschatological expectations-the preaching of glad tidings and the performance of healing miracles: (7) For he will glorify the pious on the throne of an eternal kingdom, (8) releasingcaptives,givingsightto the blindand raisingup thosewho are bo[weddown].(9) ForeverI willcleaveto [thosewho]hope,andin his kindness. .... (10) The fru[itof a] good [wor]kwill not be delayedfor anyone (11) andthe gloriousthingsthathavenot takenplacethe Lordwill do as he s[aid](12)forhe willhealthe wounded,givelife to the deadandpreachgood newsto the poor(13)andhe will[sat]isfythe [weak]onesandleadthosewho havebeen castout andenrichthe hungry... (14) ... andallof them ... 13 This text reveals the historical certainty that some Jews contemporary with Jesus associated the apocalypticreturn of the Lord with the release of captives, the healing of the blind, the raisingof the downtrodden,the healing of the sick, the raising of the dead, and the preaching of the good news to the poor--a pattern of acts and miracles remarkablysimilar to those voiced by Jesus in the Q material.14What this parallelsuggests about the identity of Jesus and the meaning of his message is obviously radical. However, in regard to Jesus' messianic identity in the Qmaterial, the simple fact must be emphasized that Luke 7:22//Matt 11:4-6 implies Jesus' anointingby the Spirit,the single most important messianic attribute (Isa 11:2; 42:1), since in voicing these words Jesus assumes the role of Isaiah'sanointed herald: 13Translation by John J. Collins (The Scepter and the Star [New York: Doubleday, 1995] 117). In the same work Collins surmises: "The parallel between 4Q521 and the New Testament text is intriguing since both go beyond Isaiah 61 in referring to the raising of the dead. This can hardlybe coincidental. It is quite possible that the authorof the SayingsSource knew 4Q521; at the least he drew on a common tradition"(p. 122). Craig Evans goes even furtherto say "4Q521 significantly supports the traditionalview that Jesus did indeed see himself as Israel's Messiah"("Jesus and the Dead Sea Scrolls from Qumran Cave 4," in Eschatology, Messianism, and the Dead Sea Scrolls [ed. C. Evans and P. Flint; Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1997] 97). It is remarkablethat recent studies of Q have not taken this Qumranfragmentinto serious consideration. 14Pace E. P. Sanders,Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1985) 163: ". .. subsequent Jewish literature does not indicate that Jews habituallylooked for miracles as a sign of the coming end." The search for signs may not have been a habitualpractice for most Jews, but those who integrated OT prophecy into their eschatology did associate a specific pattern of miracles with the first

Meadors:"Messianic" Implicationsof Q Isaiah61:la (MT)

n JP'T mmU 'lr?!Nr71n ,rk1-111r

259

Isaiah61:la (LXX) 7c'ee oi eiveicev eC c lreXPtoegIie, eayyehtoc;o ;at xzoX0 Hveiga icpio up

To this I add anotherwell-knownobservation.The first-centuryBCEQumran text 11QMelchlinksthe anointedfigureof Isa61:1-3withthe anointedprince of Dan 9:25 (7'r) n' ), indicatingthat in the centurypriorto Jesusand the "meshypotheticalcollectionof Q, Isa61:1-3wasa textproneto eschatological The samemayhavebeen trueof laterJewishinterpretasianic"interpretation. tions of Isa 61:1-3. As James A. Sanders has demonstrated, Targum linksIsa61:1to Num25:12andMal3:1"ina viewof the misPseudo-Jonathan sionof Elijahwhenhe comesto announcethe EndTimeandthe comingof the Sandersfurtheradds,"Inthreeof the sixbasicrabbinictraditions Messiah."15 in whichIsa 61:1-3 figures,with anyimportat all, it is seen in relationto the eschaton:the missionof Elijah,finalredemptionby the ruahhaqqodesh,and the exaltedplaceof humilityin receivingthe goodnewsof the finalherald."' Hence, in view of the traditionhistoryof the text,Jesus'associationwith Isa 61:1-3 in Q in all likelihoodsignalssomethingspecial,indeed something unique-dare we saysomethingeschatological-aboutthe personandworkof Jesushimself.ForthisreasonJohn'sdisciplescomeaskingif Jesusis the coming one-not a comingone or one of the comingones but the comingone. Final stressin this blockof Q materialthereforefallsdecisivelyupon the personof Jesushimself:"Andblessedis he whodoesnot stumbleuponMe." The christologicalsignificanceof this passageheightensstill furtherwith the observationthat the miraclesaccomplishedby Jesusfulfill expectations previouslyassociatedwith God and the eschatologicalDay of the Lord.If his actionssupplythe answerto his identity,as the textimplies,Jesushas come in the place of God performingthe workof God. Does this high descriptionof Jesusand his workdemarcatea secondarystratumof Q Christology?Several strandsof pre-Christian Judaismindicatethatsucha conclusionis unnecessary. Not forgettinghow the prophetIsaiahappliedthe namesImmanuel,Wonderful Counselor,MightyGod, EverlastingFather,andPrinceof Peace (Isa7:14; stages of the end-time era-as clearly was case for the Qumran composer(s) of 4Q521 and the tradent(s) of the Q material. For these, the pattern of miracles reported would not signify that the end was near, but that well-known saving aspects of God's end-time intervention into history were now taking place. For the Qumran community this had not yet occurred. For the Q transmitters this had happened alreadyin the work of Jesus. 15James A. Sanders, "From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4," in Christianity,Judaism and Other GrecoRoman Cults: Studiesfor Morton Smith at Sixty;Part 1, New Testament(ed. Jacob Neusner; SJLA 12; Leiden: Brill, 1975) 88. 16Ibid. The three rabbinictexts Sandersalludes to include: Midr. 'Ekahto 3:50 (73a); Yalqut ha-Makhiri;TargumPs-Jonathan.

260

Journalof BiblicalLiterature

9:6) to a coming Son who would rule on the throne of David (Isa 9:7), I appeal to the pre-Christian Jewish practice demonstrated in Ezek 34:11-22, 23-28; 37:23, 24, where the name and function of shepherd are applied to God in one instance and to the "servant David" in the next. In Ezek 37:24-25 the same Davidic servant is identified as "king"and "prince."'7A comparable procedure occurs in Pss. Sol. 17:26, where the Messiah ("sonof David")assumes a responsibility previously associated with God, namely, that of gathering the nations into a renewed Zion (Isaiah 60). Similarly,in 11QMelch, Melchizedek assumes the divine prerogativeto pronounce finaljudgment and ultimately is identified directly with Elohim in the second to last line. Elsewhere God shares divine authority with the "son of God" of 4QAramaicApocalypse (4Q246) col. 11, a figure reminiscent of 2 Sam 7:14, who rules over an eternal kingdom and is referred to as "agreat god among the gods."18s Such precedents anticipateJesus' close association with God in the Q material and render suspect the arbitrary pinpointing of Luke 7:22-23//Matt 11:4-6 in a middle or late stage of Qredaction. Granted, one could argue despite 4Q521 that Luke 7:22-23//Matt 11:4-6 entered Q during a secondary Jewish or tertiary Greek stage of redaction and need not be located at the font of the Q tradition.19Yet are there strong indica17In Ezekiel 40-48 interest in the king and/or prince gives way to interest in the Temple and the priestly cult. On the place of messianic expectation within the theology of Ezekiel, see Collins, Scepter and the Star, 27-28; and Jon D. Levenson, Theology of the Program of Restoration of Ezekiel 40-48 (HSM 10; Missoula, MT: ScholarsPress, 1976). 18Translationof Florentino Garcia Martinez, The Dead Sea Scrolls Translated (2d ed.; Leiden: Brill;Grand Rapids:Eerdmans, 1996) 138. On this aspect of 4Q246, Collins notes: "Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that even in the Hebrew Bible the king could be addressed as a 'god,' 'elohim. The titles 'Son of God' and 'Son of the Most High' imply that this figure stands in a special relationshipto the Deity, and that he is not an ordinarymortal.... The notion of a Messiahwho was in some sense divine had its roots in Judaism,in the interpretationof such passages as Psalm 2 and Daniel 7 in an apocalyptic context. This is not to deny the great difference between a text like 4Q246 and the later Christianunderstandingof the divinityof Christ. But the notion that the Messiah was Son of God in a special sense was rooted in Judaism,and so there was continuity between Judaism and Christianity in this respect, even though Christian belief eventually diverged quite radicallyfrom its Jewish sources"(Scepter and the Star, 168-69). 19Dale Allison has in fact recently located Luke 7:22-23//Matt 11:4-6 in his third hypothetical compositional layer of Q, which he dubs Q3.This is a consequence of the distinctive features the passage shares with other sections Allison locates in Q3:"richChristology";focus on John the Baptist; apologetic interest in the scriptures;textualagreement with the LXX(TheJesus Traditionin Q [Harrisburg,PA: Trinity Press International, 1997] 34-37). Allison reaches this conclusion, however, without addressing the phenomenon of 4Q521, which is a very close Hebrew parallel to the pattern of miracles cited in Luke 7:22-23//Matt 11:4-6 (see n. 13). Furthermore, quotation of the LXX does not necessarily argue for a Greek original. When translating a Semitic original into Greek, it is reasonableto postulate that translatorswould assimilatequotationsof the OT to the text type most familiarto their Greek audience, which in most cases would have been the LXX. I find the scholarly hesitance to attribute OT quotations and allusions to Jesus perplexing. As a firstcentury Jewish teacher, one would expect Jesus to refer to the OT frequently.

Meadors:"Messianic" Implicationsof Q

261

torsto necessitatethis bifurcation?Is this argumentfromsilencecompelling? Even if one grantsfor the sakeof argumenta compositional historyof Q, why assumeit helpsus at allwiththe historyof a communityor the historicalJesus? "Itcanonlydo so if we thinkthe variousstagesareclearmirrorsof the communities of the authors-but is that a reasonableassumption?"20 As all interconclusions are affected (of by scholarlypresuppositions courseI am preters' no exceptionto thisrule),one wondersif theoriesof earlyQ redactionare not precipitatedby scholarlyassumptionsas to whatthe historicalJesuscouldor in thiscasecouldnothavesaid.ThesupposedearlyJewishandlaterGreekphases of Q redactionthus become convenientdumpinggroundsfor Jesusmaterial thatdoes not conformto preconceivednotionsof a "nonmessianic," or a "nonhistoricalJesus. But clearlydefined eschatological,"or a "nonapocalyptic" of Q classifiedas "sapiential," stratifications "compartmentalized" "prophetic," the accord with etc., "polemical," "apocalyptic," "parenetic," poorly diversityof Palestinian life. And hence credible evidence early-first-century supportingthe is of stratified of redaction not necessity phases Q forthcoming. Havingestablishedthat Jesus emerges in Q as an anointedfigure who functionsas a savioras farbackin the Q traditionas objectiveinquirycango, I now moveon to considerotherpassagesin Qthathavemessianicconnotations. In closely parallelpassagesin Q we learnfirst fromJohnthe Baptistof the expectationof a comingone who will "baptizewith the Holy Spiritand fire," who will "clearhis threshingfloor,""gatherhis wheat,"and"burnup the chaff with unquenchablefire"(Luke3:16-17//Matt3:11-12). WhetherJohn said these wordsin expectationof a comingMessiahor of the comingof Godhimself does not affect our case. As an introductionto what followsin Q, John's words clearlyrefer to Jesus,who, in the contextof the final Q arrangement immediatelycomeson the scene followingthesewordsof John.His comingin the place of God cohereswith Luke7:22-23//Matt11:4-6where,as we have seen,Jesusclaimsto haveperformeda patternof miraclesspecificallyexpected of God.The Christologyis consistent,thoughhereJesus'messianicauthorityis exercisedthroughjudgment.These wordssupportJesus'messiahshipinasmuchas theyconfirmhis anointingby the Spiritandarespokenby John,a recognizedprophetwhoserolewasknownto the earliestfollowersof Jesus(Luke 7:26-28//Matt11:9-11;Luke16:16//Matt11:12-13;cf. Mark9:11-13),on the basisof Mal4:5,to be thatof "Elijahthe prophetbeforethe comingof the great andterribleDay of the Lord."HenceJohn'sdeparturesets the stageforJesus' arrivalas "thecomingone,"the bringerof the eschatological ruleof God.21 20 This question and the one before it are contributed by one of the anonymous referees of this article. 21 By "eschatological"I mean that Jesus' words and works compare favorablywith OT and early Jewish expectations for the end-time, when God would act decisively within history to reward

262

Journalof BiblicalLiterature

Elsewherein Q, Jesus'anointingmanifestsitself in the presentactionof the Holy Spiritin Jesus'work,whichis exactlywhatshouldbe expectedif Isa 61:1-3 playeda formative,programmatic rolein Q'sChristology. Therearetwo locationsin Q whereJesusis empoweredexplicitlyby the Holy Spirit:firstin his temptationsand secondin his exorcismof demonsby the fingerof God.22 The three temptationspresupposethatJesusis the Son of God, demonstrate what kindof Messiahhe is not, and makethe point thatJesus'miracleswere reservedfor a singularpurposedecidedlydifferentfromthose envisionedby Satan.Thatis, as the anointedSon of God, Jesusrefusedto turn stonesinto breadandjumpoff the Templeandjoin forceswith Satan.Hence,it couldnot be argued,as Jesus'opponentsdo elsewherein Q (Luke11:15//Matt12:24), thatJesuswasin cahootswithSatan/Beelzebul. But,it couldbe argued--asthe carriersof Q knewfromLuke7:22-23//Matt11:4-6-that Jesus,as legitimate Son of God/Messiah,performeda designed pattern of miraclesthat were knownfromthe HebrewScripturesto signalthe arrivalof God'ssavingpresence amonghumankind. With MarcusBorgandmanyothers,I concuron the basisof 2 Sam7:14; Ps 2:7;72; 89; 1 Chr 17:13;4Q246;and4QFlorthat"thephrases'anointedby God,' 'son of God,' and the term 'Messiah'are closely related."23Such is wherethe nameSonof Godis appliedto a Jew, extremelylikelyin thisnarrative Jesus,who is anointedby the Spiritof God to performthe will of God with a singularpurposewhichis contraryto the willof Satan,the archetypalopponent of God in SecondTempleJudaism.The entireepisodepointsto Jesus'messiahship.24 The secondimplicitreferenceto Jesus'anointingoccursin Luke 11:20// Matt 12:28,whereJesusagainsuccessfullythwartsevil, this time demons,by meansof the Spiritof God.Whetherthe originalQ wordingincludedfinger does not affect our argument,since the two (6&xituko;)or Spirit(nrve~ipa) in the OT.5Accordingto earlyJewtermswereto someextentinterchangeable ish tradition,the authorityto neutralizedemonswas a traitassociatedwith those faithful to him and to judge those who reject his rule. That the changes Jesus accomplishes in Q were previously expected to be accomplished by God on the end-time Day of the Lord makes appropriatethe adoption of the adjective "eschatological"in modifying Jesus and his work. 22 A third possibly could be Jesus' baptism (Luke 3:21-22//Matt 3:13-17), a possible Q pasthat sage explicitly depicts Jesus' anointing by the spirit and therefore would support the cause of this article. 23 Marcus Borg, Jesus, a New Vision: Spirit, Culture, and the Life of Discipleship (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987) 50. 24 Pace James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making (2d ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989) 36: ". .. (the divine sonship of Jesus has apparentlyno particularsignificance for Q)." 25The two words are used interchangeablyin Ezek 8:1-3; 37:1; 1 Chr 28:11, 19. See also the references supplied by W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Matthew (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1991) 2.340 n. 35.

Meadors:"Messianic" Implicationsof Q

263

Davidandparticularly Solomon,the Son of David.26Thus,the exorcismsthat Jesusperformsthroughthe powerof the Spiritmayimplyhis Davidicmessiahship.For the sakeof our discussion,it is noteworthythatmiraclesof exorcism mayhavebeen integratedintothe interpretation of Isa 61:1-3 beforethe of the captives time of Jesusandthe compilingof the Qmaterial.Identification victimsprobablyfindshistoricalprecedentin of Isa 61:1withdemon-possessed 11QMelch,whichdescribesMelchizedekas the fulfillmentof the anointedone of Isa 61:1.Accordingto thistext,Melchizedeknot onlyproclaimseschatological salvation,asJesusdoesin Q, but Melchizedekis alsoexpectedto avengethe judgmentsof Godandengagein battlewithSatanto "dragthemfromthe hand of] Satanand from the handof all the sp[iritsof] his [lot]."The association betweenthe poorof Isa61:1-3andthoseliberatedfromSatan(Belial)mayalso 2:9-10:"Andthe poorshallinheritthe landandenjoy underlie4QpPsa(4Q171) in Its concernsthe congregationof the poorwho peace plenty. interpretation will toleratethe periodof distressandwill be rescuedfromall the snaresof Belial."27 Hence, the precedentsof 11QMelchand 4QpPsacrediblyopen the wayforlocatingJesus'exorcisms(Luke11:20//Matt12:28)on the samelevelof traditionas his healingmiracles(Luke7:22//Matt11:4-6),whichare seen in part as the fulfillmentof Isa 61:1-3. In Luke 11:20//Matt12:28,when Jesus casts out demonsby the finger/Spiritof God, the kingdomof God has come upon those present,becausein the event the long-awaitedanointedone has of the eschatological signaledthe inauguration yearof jubileespokenof in Isa 61:1-3.If Jesus'workwasthatof a Jewishexorcistor of a Hellenisticmagician, his actswouldhavebeen noteworthy,but not withoutanalogy.However,if in additionto his healingmiracles,his exorcismsaccomplished"libertyto the captives,andthe openingof the prisonto thosewhoarebound"(Isa61:1),hiswork wasuniqueandhispresencesignaledthe long-awaited arrivalof God'seschatological savingrule. Indeed there were other exorcists,as there were other anointedcharismatic leaders(John!).ButJesuswasdifferentto the degreethat his patternof miraclespointedto somethingfarmoresignificant.If Jesusperformedthe workpronouncedin Isa 61:1-3, he wasthe long-awaitedanointed liberator,whose comprehensiveworkhad no contemporaryanalogy(Luke 7:22-23//Matt11:4-6). Withthisinterpretation of Luke11:20//Matt12:28in mind,we areableto of anotherQ saying: the messianic force comprehend atthe Thequeenof the southshallriseupwiththemenof thisgeneration of and condemn because she came from the the earth ends them, judgment 26 See Wis 7:17a, 20b; Josephus Ant. 8.2.5 ??45-49; Ps.-Philo LAB 63; 11QPs 27; Dennis C. Duling, "Solomon Exorcism, and the Son of David,"HTR 65 (1975) 235-52. 27 Allusions to Isa 61:1-3 in 4QpPsa 2:9-10 have been detected and argued by James A. Sanders ("From Isaiah 61 to Luke 4," 89-90) and David Flusser ("Blessed are the Poor in Spirit ."IEJ 10 [1960] 1-13). Translationfrom GarciaMartinez,Dead Sea ScrollsTranslated,203-4.

Journalof BiblicalLiterature

264

to hear the wisdom of Solomon; and behold, something greater than Solomonis here.(Luke11:31//Matt12:42) On the messianic implications of this statement of Jesus, N. T. Wright has recently commented: is anobvious"messianic" model.To claimthat Solomon,the Temple-builder, Jesusis greaterthanhim is to claimthathe is the true Messiah;thathe will buildthe eschatological Temple;thatthroughhimthe Davidickingdomwill be restored.The contextalso suggeststhatthis Messiahwill be the one to whomthe nationswillcomeandbowin obedience:throughhis kingdomthe worldwiderestorationwillbe fulfilled.The popupropheciesof "messianic" as the fictive authorof variousworks(Odes,Psalms,Wisof Solomon larity domanda Testament)is eloquentevidenceof hisfamein the second-Temple period;for Jesusto comparehimselfwith Solomon,to the latter'sdisadvanclaim.28 tage,wasto stakea definite"messianic" Wright'sinterpretationis complemented by the simple fact that the comparison in this saying exists between the anointed figure of Solomon and the anointed figure of Jesus. The very person of Jesus is elevated via the comparison, not sophia or a particular trajectory of wisdom thought. The saying coheres with the messianic contours of Q we have developed so far.Jesus was not only superior to the Jewish exorcists of his day (Luke 11:19-20//Matt 12:27-28); he was superior also to Israel'sanointed kings. The transmittersof Q pronounced Jesus to be superior even to Solomon, the son of David, the progenitor of the Davidic covenant, the legendary wise man and exorcist, the traditional object of messianic speculation. Jesus was the anointed one who had taken up the task of the promised Davidic deliverer (2 Sam 7:12, 14) and carried it out through the interpretive grid of Isa 61:1-3. For in accomplishing the deeds of liberation promised in Isa 35:5; 61:1-3; and 4Q521, Jesus associated himself not with Solomon but with the end-time work of God. The burden of proof is squarely upon those who would locate this sayingin a secondarylayer of Q redaction. III. The "Messianic"Authorityof Jesus in Q Jesus' messianic authorityin Q is substantiatedfirst by the frequency with which he adopts the rMyco *iv form of speech to address his contemporaries. The phrase is shared by Matthew and Luke fourteen times in Q texts.29In a further twenty-two references, Matthew or Luke contains the phrase in a Q sayN. T. Wright,Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1996) 535. 29Luke 3:8//Matt 3:9; Luke 6:27//Matt5:44; Luke 7:9//Matt8:10; Luke 7:26//Matt 11:9; Luke 7:28//Matt 11:11; Luke 10:12//Matt 10:15; Luke 10:24//Matt 13:17; Luke 11:51//Matt 23:36; Luke 12:22//Matt 6:25; Luke 12:27//Matt 6:29; Luke 12:44//Matt 24:47; Luke 12:59//Matt 5:26; Luke 13:35//Matt23:39; Luke 15:7//Matt 18:13 28

Meadors:"Messianic" of Q Implications

265

ing, whilethe otherdoes not.30Hence,if eitherMatthewor Luke,or both,on occasion omitted the phrase to prevent redundancy,the Q total could be words"ButI sayuntoyou"contrast higher.As is well known,the introductory as foundin the OT,which radicallywith previouspropheticpronouncements begin with the standardintroductoryformula"Thussaysthe Lord,"andwith laterChristianpropheticstatementsfoundin Actsandthe bookof Revelation, The contrastsignifiesJesus' which begin with "Thussaysthe Holy Spirit."31 unrivaledauthorityto pronouncejudgmentand salvation-the dualcomponents of biblicalprophecy.Jesus'activityis radicallyuniquebecausehe proclaimseschatologicaljudgmentas the eschatologicaljudge, andhe proclaims eschatologicalsalvationas the eschatologicalsavior.Thus,the eschatological relevanceof the foremostQ beatitude:"Blessedis he who does not stumble upon me"(Luke7:23//Matt11:6).The pervasiveemphasisof Q is not on wisdomor on a certainkindof lifestyle(Cynicor otherwise),but on Jesushimself. Againthe relevanceof Jesus'Q proclamation "somethinggreaterthanJonahis here"(Luke11:32//Matt12:41).The comparisonexistsnot betweentwo competing messagesbut betweentwo historicalpeople,JonahandJesus.Jesusis superiorbecausenot onlyhashe prophesieda comingdayof salvation,but he hasactuallyparticipatedin its arrival,ashis signsdemonstrate. ElsewhereJesus'messianicauthorityunderliesthe eightpronouncements of "woe"that Jesuschargesagainsthis generationwithinthe Q material.As eschatological judge,Jesushasthe authorityto condemneventhe mostrevered leaders of his day(e.g.,Luke11:43//Matt 23:6;Luke11:46//Matt23:4; religious Luke 12:8-9//Matt10:32-33;Luke 13:29-30//Matt8:11-12;Luke 13:34-35// Matt23:37-39). Comparisonbetweenpresentandpast againestablishesthe absoluteimportanceof what is at presenttakingplace in Jesus'ministry.In Luke10:13//Matt11:21JesusforecaststhatTyreandSidon,pagancitiesof past renown,will riseup andjudgeChorazinandBethsaidabecausethe lattertwo cities failedto recognizethe significanceof "themightyworks"thatJesusand his disciplesperformedamongthem.The sinsof Tyreand Sidonexacta lesser penaltybecausethese ancientswereinnocent,as Jesus'opponentswerenot,of to the actualarrivalof God'ssavingrulespearfailingto respondappropriately headed by Jesushimself.Whatis impliedin Jesus'warningto Chorazinand For the exact references, see J. Kloppenborg,Q Parallels:Synopsis, Critical Notes & Con30 cordance (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988) 237. 31 Acts 21:10, 11; Rev 14:13. For these references, I am indebted to Martin Hengel, Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1995) 66. David Daube argued that Matthew's expression "Youhave heard-but I say to you"was analogous to the rabbinic expression "I might hear, understand-but you must say"(The New Testamentand RabbinicJudaism [New York:Arno Press, 1973] 55-62). The rabbinic parallels Daube cited, however, were significantly later than Matthew and the Q material(firsthalf of the second century CE)and are not persuasiveparallels,as they lack the distinctive and authoritative"I"in the second clause.

266

Journalof BiblicalLiterature

Bethsaidais madeexplicitin Luke12:8-9//Matt10:32-33,wheresalvationin the presenceof Godhingesresolutelyuponproperconfessionof Jesus:"AndI sayto you,everyonewhoconfessesme beforeothers,the Sonof Manshallalso confessbeforethe angelsof God;butwhoeverdeniesme beforeothersshallbe denied before the angelsof God."Simplystatedthen, properconfessionof Jesusis the wayof salvationin the Q material.Jesushimselfis the crux! Rejection of Jesus' messianic authorityfurther explainsthe repeated indictmentof "thisevil generation"in Q.32The mostprobableoriginof this phraseis, in my opinion,the "evilgeneration"spokenof in Deut 1:35;32:5; 32:20,whichbalkedat God'scommandforthe Israelitesto enter,conquer,and possess the land of Canaan.Theirpunishmentwas fortyyearsof wilderness wanderingand exclusionfromthe promisedland.In Q, Jesus'opponentsare guiltyof rejectingthe anointedheraldanddelivererof the eschatologicalsalvationanticipatedby the prophets,whosesuccessivedeathscomposethe Deuteronomistictraditionfirstchartedby O. H. Steck.33"Thisgeneration"is judged withpastenemiesof God,who turneddeaf earsto the guiltyfor collaborating Their sentencewillbe exclusionfromthe savingbenefitsof propheticmessage. Jesus' ministry-an exclusion they have brought upon their own heads. Whereasin the prophetictradition,the theme of judgmentrelatesto idolatry, withpaganinfidels,in the worshipat highplaces,fornication,or intermarriage Qmaterialit relatesto the rejectionof the personJesus.Again,Jesushimselfis the crux. From its usage in Deuteronomy,"thisgeneration"mayhave developed into an eschatological technicalphraserepresentingthe generationlivingat the time of God'suniquerevelationin historyas accomplishedon the futuredayof the Messiah.Pss. Sol. 18:6-9so describesa future"blessedgeneration," which If suchwas the case, the positive was to welcomethe Messiahandhis work.34 phrasefindsa negativeusagein Q, as in Deuteronomy,becausethe generation thatshouldhavebeen blessedby the Messiah'sarrivalhasin factcursedthemselvesby rejectingtheirpromisedsavior. 32Occurring in Mark, Acts, Philippians and Hebrews, the phrase is not unique to Q. For a book-length treatment of the phrase "thisgeneration,"see Evald Livestam, Jesus and "thisGeneration":A New TestamentStudy (Stockholm:Almqvist& Wiksell, 1995). 3 O0.H. Steck, Israel und das gewaltsameGeschickder Propheten (WMANT 23; NeukirchenVluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1967). "Blessed are those born in those days, to see the good things of the Lord which he will do 34 for the coming generation; (which will be) under the rod of discipline of the Lord Messiah, in the fear of his God, in wisdom of spirit, and of righteousness and of strength, to direct people in righteous acts, in the fear of God, to set them all in the fear of the Lord. A good generation (living) in the fear of God, in the days of mercy."

Meadors: "Messianic"Implicationsof Q

267

IV. The "Messianic"Banquet in Q

J. Priest has recently observed that "[t]he theme of a 'messianic'/eschatological banquet was well known in Jewish and Christianapocalypticthought."35 It is no surprisetherefore that the theme of the "messianic"banquet surfaces in Q,where we have seen other messianic themes converge. In the Lukanversion of the Q text Luke 22:28-30//Matt 19:28, Jesus informs his followers, Andyou are thosewho havestoodby me in my trials;andjust as my father hasgrantedme a kingdom,I grantyouthatyoumayeat anddrinkatmy table in my kingdom,andyouwillsit on thronesjudgingthe twelvetribesof Israel. On this text Priest comments, "Reference to my table in my kingdom can hardly be interpreted in any other way than an allusion to the 'messianic' meal."36Elsewhere in Q the concept of a messianic banquet reappears in the parable of the great supper (Luke 14:15-24//Matt 22:1-10), particularly in Luke 14:24, "For I tell you, none of those men who were invited shall taste of my banquet."37The messianic banquet concept again comes into play in Luke 13:28-29//Matt 8:11-12, an indisputable Q text, where Jesus forecasts that his opponents will be excluded from the eschatologicalbanquet: Therewill be weepingand gnashingof teeth therewhenyou see Abraham and IsaacandJacoband all the prophetsin the kingdomof God,but yourselvesbeingcastout.Andtheywillcomefromeastandwest,andfromnorth andsouth,andwillreclineat thetablein thekingdomof God. Finally,the fourth beatitude may also be a crypticallusionto the messianic banquet: "Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied" (Luke 6:21//Matt5:6). Together these texts present yet another feature of the Q material that would have supportedthe earlyChristianclaim that Jesuswas the Messiah. As Messiah, Jesus would determine who would and who would not be present at his banquet. V. The "Messianic"Names Attributedto Jesus in Q I now turn to the fourthtask of this article,that of reassertingthe messianic connotations of the names attributed to Jesus in the Q material:Son of Man, Son of God, and "the coming one."'8These appellations could be regarded as 5 J. Priest, "ANote on the Messianic Banquet,"in The Messiah, ed. Charlesworth,237. Background texts for the messianic banquet concept include: 1 Enoch 62:12-16; 2 Apoc. Bar. 29:1-8; 1QSa 2:11-21. "ANote on the Messianic Banquet,"230. S36Priest, 37Luke 22:28-30//Matt 19:27-29 and Luke 14:15-24//Matt 22:1-10 are included in Q by the vast majorityof"Q Scholars"(especially in recent years). See Kloppenborg,Q Parallels, 166, 202. 38 ic6pto; is not a term of christological significance in Q. Where it occurs it is used in the

268

Journalof BiblicalLiterature

nonmessianic idioms of speech. However, in view of the prevalence of messianism elsewhere in Q, it is noteworthy that early extrabiblicalJewish writers and NT writers alike attributed messianic significance to each of these phrases. As we have seen, Son of God is a name relating directly to the Davidic promise that an heir of David would rule upon God's throne forever and be given the name son (2 Sam 7:14; Pss 2:7; 72:1-7; 89:26; 1 Chr 17:13; 4QFlor; 4Q246; Mark 1:1; 14:61). Likewise the Danielic phrase "one like a son of man" was interpreted in a messianic sense in 1 Enoch 48:2-10, in Mark 14:61-62, and in John 12:34. And the phrase "the coming one," taken from Ps 118:26 (Luke 13:35//Matt 23:39) was interpreted in a messianic sense in Mark11:9-10; Luke 19:28-38; John 12:13-15, and in messianic contexts in later rabbinicwritings.39 That "the coming one" is an eschatological, "messianic"appellation in Q is suggested by John's usage in Luke 3:16//Matt 3:11 and particularly in Luke 7:19//Matt 11:3, where Jesus is asked by John's disciples if he is "the coming one." The messianic connotation of the phrase comes to light most clearly,however, in the lament for Jerusalem (Luke 13:34, 35//Matt 23:37-39), where "Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"(Ps 118:26) is linked with Jesus' intended task of gathering the children of Jerusalem, an eschatological task attributed both to God (Isa 40:11; 54:7; 56:8; 66:18; Jer 23:3; 29:14; 31:8, 10; 32:37) and to the Davidic Messiah (Isa 11:12; Pss. Sol. 17:26) in ancient Jewish texts. In Q, "the coming one" is Jesus, who fulfills the expectations of Isa sense of earthly "master,"not "exaltedLord"(see Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity,

214-18).

39Three rabbinictexts particularlyare worth quoting: Now since there is the great Hallel, why do we recite this one? Because it includes [a mention of] the following five things: The exodus from Egypt, the dividing of the Red Sea, the giving of the Torah [Revelation],the resurrectionof the dead, and the pangs of the Messiah. The exodus from Egypt, as it is written, When Israel came forth out of Egypt;the dividing of the Red Sea: The sea saw it, and fled; the giving of the Torah:The mountains skipped like rams; resurrection of the dead: I shall walk before the Lord [in the land of the living]; the pangs of the Messiah:Not unto us, O Lord, not unto us. (b. Pes. 18a [4]) R. Samuel b. Nalamanisaid in R. Jonathan'sname: I will give thanks unto Thee,for Thou hast answered me was said by David; The stone which the builders rejected is become the chief corner-stone;by Yishai[Jesse];This is the Lord'sdoing, by his brothers;This is the day which the Lord hath made by Samuel. We beseech Thee, 0 Lord, save now! was said by his brothers: We beseech Thee, 0 Lord, make us now to prosper! by David; Blessed be he that cometh in the name of the Lord, by Jesse; We bless you out of the house of the Lord, by Samuel; The Lord is God, and hath given us light, by all of them; Order thefestival procession with boughs, by Samuel; Thou art my God, and I will give thanks unto Thee, by David; Thou art my God, I will exalt Thee, by all of them. (b. Pes. 119a [4-12]) The end of the verse, and tell of all Thy wondrous works (ibid.), refers-so said R. Abunto the recitation of the Hallel Psalms which tell of God's wondrous works in times gone by, in the present time, in the time of the Messiah, in the time of Gog and Magog, and in the time-to-come. (Pesiq. Rab Kah. 27:5 [fifth century CE])

Meadors: "Messianic"Implicationsof Q

269

61:1-3 and who also attempts to fulfill the eschatological expectation of the preceding chapter in Isaiah-that of gatheringthe nations into a renewed Zion (Isa 60:1-22). Thus, the messianic task of gathering the nations into Jerusalem (Luke 13:34-35//Matt 23:37-39) is comprehensible on the same level of tradition as the salvation wrought by the anointed herald (Luke 7:22-23//Matt 11:4-6), because the two expectationswere alreadyunified in Isaiah60 and 61. Again, it is unnecessary to postulate successive stages of christologicaldevelopment on the part of the Q communityor the early church. The messianic interpretations of the Danielic "one like a son of man" found in 1 Enoch 48:2-10; 4 Ezra 13:37,52; Mark14:61-62; and John 12:34 are undeniable and deserve attention.40How did "the Son of Man"become associated with "the Messiah"?Daniel itself may provide the answer.The royal coronation language of Dan 7:13-14 contains several parallelsto the text of 2 Sam 7:13-16, the primarybackgroundfor the Davidic covenant and the messianic Son of God concept. Both 2 Sam 7:12-16 and Dan 7:13-14 are visions, the first revealed through Nathan to David (2 Sam 7:17), the second through Daniel (7:13). Each vision focuses on the enthronement of a "son"or "son-like"figure, though Dan 7:13 may more properlybe regarded as a coronationtext ("Andhe came up to the Ancient of Days, and was presented before Him").41In both visions God (Yahwehin 2 Samuel, the Ancient of Days in Daniel) authorizes "a son" (2 Sam 7:14) or "one like a son of man"(Dan 7:13) to rule over a kingdom. In both visions repetition and end-stress unmistakablyemphasize the eschatological perpetuity with which "the son"and the "son-like"figure will rule: 2 Sam7:13 I willestablishthe throneof his kingdomforever.

Dan 7:14b His dominionis aneverlasting dominionwhichwillnotpassaway.

2 Sam7:16 Andyourhouseandyourkingdomshall endurebeforeme forever;yourthrone shallbe establishedforever. Still further,both visions are followed by epexegetical interpretationswherein 40 On the 4 Ezra text, John Collins writes of the "manfigure"reminiscent of Daniel: "Thisfigure is further identified, in the Latin and Syriacversions, as 'my son' (13:37, 52) and thereby with the Messiah, who is called 'my son' in 7:28. We have noted in the preceding chapter that 4 Ezra 13:33-38, which deal with the assaultof the Gentiles on Mount Zion, are reminiscent of Psalm 2. In the Psalm, the Lord says:'I have set my king on Zion my holy mountain,'and continues in the next verse: 'you are my son, this day I have begotten you.' In 4 Ezra 13, too, the Messiah takes his stand on Mount Zion (13:35). In any case, it is clear that the man of the vision is identified with the Messiah in the context of 4 Ezra" (Scepterand the Star, 184-85). 41So John E. Goldingay,Daniel (WBC 30; Dallas: Word, 1989) 168: "The humanlike figure comes in order to be invested as king (v 14). The sovereigntyhe is given is like God's own."

270

Journalof BiblicalLiterature

the blessingsbestoweduponthe "son"of 2 Sam7:14andthe "onelikea son of man"of Dan 7:13aretransferredto the people Israelin 2 Sam7:23(cf. 2 Sam 7:24to 2 Sam7:16)and,as is wellknown,to the saintsof the MostHighin Dan 7:18,27. The "son"of 2 Sam7:14andthe "onelike a son of man"of Dan 7:13 are thus both representativefigures.Finally,both visionscan be defined as apocalyptic,not onlybecausetheyarerevelatory(2 Sam7:27)but alsobecause they bring comfort duringtimes of militarythreat from foreign empires. 2 Samuel7 easesforeignintimidation throughrecollectionof God'sdeliverance from"Egypt,fromnationsandtheirgods"(2 Sam7:23),whilethe visionof Dan 7:13mitigatesthe fearof the "fourbeasts"andthe kingdomstheyrepresent. In his recentcommentaryon Daniel,JohnCollinshasvoicedhis opinion that"[1]ikethe Similitudesof Enochand4 Ezra,the SayingsSourceconstitutes an interpretation of Daniel7 withinthe contextof an expressionof an original religiouspointof view.It is likelythatthereis considerablecontinuitybetween the pointof view of Q andthe historicalJesus."42 On the basisof the evidence we haveseen, I am persuadedthatCollinsis correctandthatwe can takehis conclusionsa step further.Historicallyandlogically,if the authorsof 1 Enoch, 4 Ezra, Mark,and John interpretedDan 7:13-14 in a messianicsense, the probabilityis thatthe traditionprecededthem andwas likelypresupposedby the compilersof Q (whoevertheywere)andthe historicalJesus. Thismakesa lot of senseandeliminatesthe need foranunnecessarystratificationof the Q material.Forif the Q Sonof Mansayingswereoriginallymessianic in connotation, they would cohere with Jesus' wisdom, his unique authority,his messianicactions,his anointingwiththe Spirit,andhis proclamation of good news elsewhere in Q and would hence furtherthe messianic of Q were apparently of Jesusthatthe transmitters carefulto preproclamation serve and defend.43AdelaYarbroCollinshas demonstratedeffectivelythat apocalypticSon of Mansayingsexistin everysupposedlayerof Q traditionas stratifiedby contemporaryQ scholars.44 Thereforea stratifiedQ Christology basedon Q'sSonof Mansayingsseemsto forcea distinctionthatdoes not exist. The apocalypticSon of Mantraditionbeing uniformin Q, it is possible, andI thinkprobable,thatthe figureof Dan 7:13-14is in viewevenwhenthere is not a directallusionto Daniel7. Thereis no reasonto thinkthatJesusor the 42

John J. Collins, Daniel (Minneapolis:Fortress, 1993) 97.

43This was the conclusion of BarnabasLindars,Jesus Son of Man (Grand Rapids:Eerdmans,

1983) 159: "The use of Dan. 7 for Christologybelongs to much the same period as these Jewish works. The New Testament references begin as early as the Q collection, and therefore antedate these particularJewish books. But there is no sign of literaryborrowing on either side. It may thus be concluded that both are dependent upon a Messianic interpretationof Dan. 7 which is already current." 44 Adela YarbroCollins, "The Son of Man Sayings in the Sayings Source," in To Touch the Text:Biblical and Related Studies in Honor of Joseph A. Fitzmyer, S.J. (ed. M. P. Horgan and P. J. Kobelski;New York:Crossroad,1989) 375-82.

Meadors:"Messianic" of Q Implications

271

transmitters of Q would have had to make explicit the connection to Daniel 7 every time the self-reference "Son of Man"was used. As I. H. Marshall has written, The mistakeis to thinkthat an explicitreferenceto Daniel 7 is necessary everytime thatJesusrefersto the Danielicfigure;but thisis quiteunnecessary,since it is sufficientthatJesusshouldmakeclearallusionssufficiently oftento createa contextin whichless explicitreferenceswouldbe naturally understood.Thisin factis whathe doesin Mk13:26and14:62wherethe languagedemandssuchanallusion.45 This explanation makes excellent sense of the Q Son of Man sayings. Of the twelve possible Son of Man sayingsin Q, allusionsto Dan 7:13 have been found in Luke 12:40//Matt 24:44 (M. Casey), Luke 12:8//Matt 10:32 (C. Caragounis; Davies and Allison), and Luke 17:24//Matt 24:27 (G. Vermes).46Donald Juel has broadened this number to include Luke 17:26//Matt 24:37 and Luke 17:30//Matt 24:39 as "[s]eemingly indisputable allusions" to Dan 7:13.47 George Nickelsburg broadens the list still further to include Luke 22:28-30// Matt 19:28.48Finally,Adela YarbroCollins links five Q Son of Man sayings to Dan 7:13 in contexts of eschatological judgment.49A very strong case can be made, therefore, that Daniel figures importantlyin the conceptual worldview of the Q traditionand its understandingof the Son of Man. If these future-orientedDanielic sayingsarejuxtaposedto Luke 7:34// Matt 11:19 and Luke 9:58//Matt8:20 (two present sayingsthat lack clear allusionsto Daniel), we discoverthe same ironythat surfaceselsewhere in the Q materialthat the Son of Man has been rejected by his own generation.In the context of Q where Jesus laments Jerusalem, pronounces eschatological judgment against Chorazin and Bethsaida, and forewarnsfuture woes against lawyers and Pharisees, it is hard to accept Luke 7:34//Matt 11:19 and Luke 9:58//Matt 8:20 as "generic"self-references true of everyone. No, rejection appearsto be a way of life particularlytrue of Jesus himself. Jesus'identity as the Danielic Son of Man explainsboth his authorityand the ironyof his rejection. As regardsthe Son of Man in Q, I conclude that it is likely that the earliest I. H. Marshall,"The Synoptic 'Son of Man' Sayingsin the Light of Linguistic Study,"in To Tell the Mystery: Essays on New Testament Eschatology in Honor of Robert H. Gundry (ed. Thomas E. Schmidt and Moises Silva;Sheffield:JSOT Press, 1994) 93. 46 M. Casey, Son ofMan: The Interpretationand InfluenceofDaniel 7 (London: SPCK, 1979) 236; C. Caragounis, The Son of Man: Vision and Interpretation (Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck, 1986) 202-3; Davies and Allison, Matthew, 2.214-15; G. Vermes, Jesus the Jew (London: Collins, 1973) 178-79. 47Donald Juel, Messianic Exegesis (Philadelphia:Fortress, 1988) 158-59. 48George W. E. Nickelsburg,"Sonof Man,"ABD 6.142. 49Adela YarbroCollins, "The Influence of Daniel on the New Testament,"introductorysection in John J. Collins, Daniel, 97 n. 53. A. Y. Collins lists Luke 12:40//Matt24:44; Luke 17:24//Matt 24:27; Luke 17:26//Matt24:37; Luke 17:30 (cf. Matt 24:39); Luke 22:28-30//Matt 19:28.

272

Journalof BiblicalLiterature

transmitters of the Q materialrecognizedthe phraseas anallusionto Dan 7:13, of the phrase'smessianicconnotations.As a title forJesus,"theSon aware fully of Man"wasthereforea fittingandappropriate alternateforthe names"Sonof in and "the one" used elsewhere God" Q. Continuityin usagebetween coming of Q andthe historicalJesusis plausibleandcannotbe the earliesttransmitters disproved. Is it conceivablethatthe earliesttransmitters of the Q materialusedSonof asinterchangeable or God,Sonof Man,and"thecomingone"synchronistically alternativenames to signifyJesus'messianicidentity?In view of analogous practiceselsewherein earlyJudaism,I thinkit is. In 1 Enoch,for example,the four titles "righteousone,""anointedone,""chosenone,"and "sonof man" appearindependentlyin referenceto the samebeing.50A combinationof titles used concurrentlyin referenceto the samefigureoccursalsoin 11QMelch,as JohnCollinsnotes: In 11QMelchizedek, the god ( 'r#) who risesin the heavenlycounciland administersdivinejudgmentis calledMelchizedek.It seemslikely,however, thatMichael,Melchizedekandthe Princeof Lightwerethreenamesforthe same figure,and thatthe dualismof the princesof light and darknesswas alreadylaidoutin the Testamentof Amramin the middleof the secondcentury B.C.E.51

Similarly,the namesSonof God,Sonof Man,and"thecomingone"mayhave in Q, whereeachname,againstits Jewish been attributedto Jesusconcurrently background,specifieda hoped-foreschatological figurewho,on the Dayof the Lord,wouldimpartsavingbenefits.Withgreaterease thanwe maysuspect,a first-centuryJew well versedin the OT and SecondTempleJewishwritings couldhave drawntogetherthese texts,interpretedthem in a messianicsense on the basisof theiroriginalcontexts,andappliedthemto one individual.For the transmittersof Q, "thecomingone"was the "coming"Son of Man (Dan 7:13:"Onelikea son of manwascoming"),whohadperformedthe workof the DavidicSonof God(2 Sam7:12:"Iwillraiseupyourdescendantafteryou,who will comeforthfromyou, andI willestablishhis kingdom"). The contemporary mindsetthat each title mustdemarcatea separatelayerof communityreflection about Jesus may be unnecessary.

VI. The MessianicLanguageof Q The fifthandfinaltaskof this articleis to demonstratethatthe respective languagesof wisdom,prophecy,eschatology,and apocalypticare mutually 50See J. C. Vanderkam,"RighteousOne, Messiah, Chosen One, and Son of Man in 1 Enoch 37-71," in The Messiah, ed. Charlesworth, 185: "The four terms, in the present text of 1 Enoch 37-71, very clearly refer to the same being." 51Collins, Scepterand the Star, 176.

Meadors:"Messianic" of Q Implications

273

inclusivemeansof expressingJesus'"messianic" authorityin Q and are therefore faultycriteriafor demarcatingsuccessive,mutuallyexclusivelayersof Q redaction.For wisdom,prophecy,eschatology,andvariousfeaturesof apocalypticintermixfrequentlyin earlyJewishliterature,particularlyin textswhich deliverer.The texts arewellknownfor theirpropheciesof a coming"messianic" of 2 Sam7:8-14, Isa 11:1-10,the bookof Daniel,Pss.Sol. 17-18,521 Enoch48 and4QFlorshareto lesserandgreaterdegreeseachof these characteristically Jewishformsof expressionin theirdescriptionsof the comingMessiahandthe eventsto be expectedon the dayof his arrival.The followingstatementstherefore brieflysummarizethe amalgamation of these featuresin sixJewishtexts thatwere eitherexplicitlymessianicor were interpretedas messianicby later Jewishwriters.Likewise,though2 Samuel7 and Isaiah11 were probablynot understoodto be eschatologicalfromthe beginning,theywere interpretedin an eschatologicalsenseby laterJewspriorto the firstcenturyCE. 2 Samuel7:8-16 2 Sam7:8-16 is a propheticoraclepronouncedby the prophetNathan.It focuseson the eschatological promisethatGodwillestablishhis kingdomforever throughhis son, an heir of David.The oracle'sfulfillmentis Solomonthe archetypalwise man.Andas a revelationof Godthatmakespromisesregarding time eternal,the oraclehasfeaturesof incipientapocalypticism (anapocalyptic 2 7:14 in of Sam occurs Rev 1:7). interpretation Isaiah11:1-10 Isaiah 11 envisionsthe springingforthof the messianicshoot from the stem of Davidat the culminationof Judah'shistory.It detailsthe equippingof thismessianicfigurewiththe Spiritof the Lord,wisdom,righteousness,underbothto judgethe wickedandto act in fairness standing,andthe responsibility in favorof the poorandafflicted.Thisdescriptionof the expectedanointedone is followedby what can be describedas an apocalypticprophecyof a transformedearthand a renewedcreationthatwill accompanythe messianicage (11:6-9). Finally,the rootof Jessewill come forthas a signalfor the peoples/ nations(11:10)initiatingthe gatheringof the "banishedonesof Israel"andthe "dispersedof Judah." On the "intersection"of themes in Psalms of Solomon,R. B. Wrightcomments: "The ethics and outlook of the Book of Proverbs are joined to apocalyptic expectation, the warranty of the Davidic covenant is fulfilled in the Messianic hope, and the concept of the 'anointed one' becomes concretized in a specific expectation of an immediate consummation. The two Messianic titles, 'Son of David' and 'Lord Messiah,'the former the first instance and the latter the only instance of such usages in Jewish literature, are themselves combinations of older concepts" ("Psalms of Solomon, A New Translationand Introduction,"OTP 2.646). 52

274

Journalof BiblicalLiterature Daniel

In Daniel,the prototypeof Jewishapocalyptic, the Q conceptsof the kingdom of God and "onelike a son of man"coexistin an atmosphereof wisdom, prophecy,cosmic warfare,and expectationof the end-timejudgment.The combinationof these featuresin Danielmakesimplausiblethe assumptionthat the samefeaturesserveas independentearmarksforQ strataof tradition.53 Psalmsof Solomon17-18 Pss. Sol. 17 and 18 are "messianic" psalmswrittenin expectationof the imminentarrivalof the DavidicMessiah.Amongothertasks,thismessianicfigure is expectedto extendGod'skingdomover Israeland the world(17:3,4), overthrowthe Gentiles (17:22),"gathera holy people whom he will lead in righteousness"(17:26),"judgepeoplesand nationsin the wisdomof his righteousness"(17:29),purgeJerusalem(17:30),and"blessthe Lord'speoplewith wisdomandhappiness"(17:35).Apocalyptic featuresof Pss.Sol.17-18 include: (1) a depictionof timeeternalfromeschatological blessingatthe end of timeto creation at the beginning of time (18:11-12); (2) the voicing of messianic prophecypronouncedduringa time of politicalandnationalsuffering(17:1120, 45-46); (3) the revelationof the Messiahat a secrettimeknownonlyto God (17:21);and (4) a prevailingtone of cosmicjudgment:"Hewill strikethe earth withthe wordof his mouthforever"(17:35). 1 Enoch48 vision(48:1)revealingthe namingof "thatson 1 Enoch48 is an apocalyptic of man"-a "messianic" figure(48:10)-before time, beforecreation.It is the task of this "chosenone"to reveal"thewisdomof the Lordof Spiritsto the righteousandthe holyones"(48:7).As a whole,the similitudeis a prophecyof eschatologicalblessingandwoe (48:7-10). (4Q174) 4QFlorilegium 4QFlorilegiumis an eschatologicalprophecyconcerningthe buildingof the perfecttemple and the comingof two Messiahs,the explainerof the law andthe branchof David(2 Sam7:14).The latter,as son of God,was expected to exactjudgmentandto establishthe throneof God'skingdomforever(2 Sam 7:13).The textinterprets2 Sam7:11apocalyptically by constructingits fulfillment on cosmicandeternalplanesandby identifyingDavid'senemiesas cosmic forcesof evil: - For the combination of these features in Daniel, see Edward P. Meadors, "Daniel and the Conceptual Backgroundof Q," in Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation (WUNT 2/72; Tiibingen: Mohr-Siebeck;Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995) 97-120.

Meadors:"Messianic" Implicationsof Q

275

Andas forwhathe saidto David:2 Sam7:11"Ishallobtainforyourestfrom allyourenemies":(it refersto this,)thathe willobtainforthemrestfromall the sonsof Belial,thosewhomakethemfall,to destr[oythemfortheirs]ins, whentheycomewiththe plansof Belialto makethe s[onsof] lightfall,andto plot againstthem wickedplansso that they are trappedby Belialin their guiltyerror.54 The text does not use the word wisdom, but abruptly ends by associating the gift of understandingwith the righteous people who know God. Together these messianic texts demonstrate that ancient Jewish authors commonly conflated themes and mannersof expressionin depicting the coming Messiah (as well as other subjects). For our purposes, they suggest that the

andapocalypticis exactlywhatone blendingof wisdom,prophecy,eschatology, wouldexpectin a collectionof sayingsand teachingsattributedto a renowned messianicfigure such as Jesus. Hence, if Q must be located on a "trajectory"of ancient thought, that "trajectory" is best described as both Jewishand messianic. VII. Conclusion In summary,the Q material certainly is worthy of literary archaeological investigation. From top to bottom, this well-documented tell is composed of messianic soil. Its extremely valuable artifactsbear messianic inscriptions. For the Q material reveals a figure anointed by the Spirit to pronounce and bring into effect the good news of God's saving presence among humankind. What the prophets of the OT and the covenanters at Qumran expected to happen in the future was now takingplace in Jesus'spirit-anointedministry.By definition, then, Jesus is a messianic figure in Q. His words and acts declare his messianic identity. And this is perhaps the chief reason why Matthew and Luke incorporated the Q materialinto their Gospels--to verify their respective Christologies through use of authoritative,dominicaltraditions.The same was likely true earlier in the transmissionprocess. Messianic features underlying the Q material supply one plausible reason for Q's transmissionby Jesus'earliest followers. The following table demonstratesthe distributionof messianic texts among the Q strataproposed by John Kloppenborg,Burton Mack,and Leif Vaage. Kloppenborg Luke4:1-13//Matt4:1-11 Luke6:20//Matt5:3 Luke7:22//Matt11:4-6 Luke10:22//Matt11:27 Luke11:20//Matt12:28 Luke11:31b//Matt 12:42b

Mack

FinalRecension(3) SapientialStage(1) PolemicalStage(2) PolemicalStage(2) PolemicalStage(2) PolemicalStage(2)

" GarcfaMartinez,Dead Sea Scrolls Translated,136.

Q3 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q2 Q2

Vaage TertiaryRedaction FormativeStratum SecondaryStratum SecondaryStratum FormativeStratum ?

276

Journalof BiblicalLiterature Kloppenborg

Mack

23:37f PolemicalStage(2) Q3 Luke13:34f//Matt Luke22:29-30//Matt19:28 PolemicalStage(2) Q3

Vaage SecondaryStratum SecondaryStratum

Of the possible messianic passages listed, Kloppenborg,Mack, and Vaageagree in their placement of the first beatitude in Q's earliest stage. Except for Vaage's placement of Luke 11:20//Matt 12:28 in Q's "Formative Stratum,"they each attribute the remainder of these sayings to Q's hypothetical secondary or tertiary stratum.55However, the first beatitude may be the proverbial crack that destroys the stratifieddam. Its allusion to Isa 61:1-3--and hence its coherence with Jesus' response to John in Luke 7:22-23//Matt 11:4-6-further attests Jesus' authority as the anointed, Spirit-filled,saving representative of the good news of the kingdom of God.56The Semitic origin of this beatitude, like Luke 7:22-23//Matt 11:4-6, and the Semitic origin of the entire string of Q beatitudes that follow may be defended in light of the discoveryof the Qumranfragment 4Q525, which contains a Palestinian collection of beatitudes in the Hebrew language.57But most important for the sake of this argument, coherence between Luke 6:20//Matt 5:3 and Luke 7:23//Matt 11:4 indicates a link between the beatitude form and Jesus' fulfillment of the eschatological expectations of Isaiah'sherald.58The emphasis is the same in both Qpassages: the blessed poor are blessed because in encountering Jesus they have come upon the anointed one, whose arrival has inaugurated good news to the afflicted, healing for the brokenhearted, liberty to captives, freedom to prisoners, the favorableyear of the Lord, the day of vengeance of God, and comfort to all who mourn. Jesus' anointed work thus signalsthe commencement of the new eschatological age of God's saving rule. This messianic foundation naturallycoheres with the other messianic texts addressed in this article and explains the harsh judgment spoken of in Qwhich awaitsthose who reject Jesus' ministry. 55References are drawn from Kloppenborg, Formation of Q, 317-28; Mack, Lost Gospel, 81-102; Vaage, Galilean Upstarts, 107-20. 56The following scholars have identified Isaiah 61 as an essential component of the background of the first beatitude: Hans Dieter Betz (The Sermonon the Mount [Minneapolis:Fortress, 1995] 113); W. D. Davies and Dale Allison (Matthew, 1.431-47), H. Schiirmann(Das Lukasevangelium, Erster Teil, Kommentarzu Kapitel 1,1-9,50 [Freiburg:Herder, 1982] 328), J. Gnilka(Das Matthdusevangelium [Freiberg: Herder, 1986] 1.120), Donald Hagner (Matthew 1-13 [Dallas: Word, 1993] 91-92); F. Bovon (Das Evangelium nach Lukas, 1. Teilband, Lk 1,1-9,50 [Zurich: Benziger; Neukirchen-Vluyn:Neukirchener Verlag, 1989] 298-99: "Besonderswichtig erscheinen mir zugleich die Beziehung zur Schrift [Jes 61,1-2; Jes 29,18-19; Jes 40,29-31], der apokalyptische Rahmen [TestJud25,4; 1QH 18,14-15] und die Feststellung, daB'in Jesus' Hebrew words both the spiritual and the social aspect were present"').Bovon's quotation is from D. Flusser, "Some Notes on the Beatitudes (Mt 5,3-12; Lc 6,20-26)," Immanuel8 (1978) 43. 57See J. A. Fitzmyer, "A Palestinian Collection of Beatitudes," in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Franz Neirynck (ed. F. Van Segbroeck et al.; 3 vols.; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992) 1.513. 58This point has been made effectively by Davies and Allison (Matthew, 2.245).

Meadors:"Messianic" Implicationsof Q

277

Some may still question my findings with the objection that neither 6 gEcaoia;nor 6 xptoc6o occurs explicitly in reference to Jesus in Q. I view this objection as methodologicallyobsolete. Since James Barr'swatershed work The Semantics of Biblical Language,59the axiom that meaning is expressed by concepts and contexts in conjunction with words has governed studies of NT semantics. Few today would deny that meaning can be and often is expressed without employing loaded technical terms. Such is the case with the conceptual origin of the "messianic"concept in the OT, where the technical term Messiah is absent. To make much of Q's silence would be disingenuous and misleading, for in Q Jesus acts, speaks, and assumes names that associate him with OT and early Jewish expectations for a coming anointed deliverer.The fact that some of these expectations were anticipated of God ratherthan a human, kingly figure only narrowsthe gap between Q and the "high"Christologiesof Paul and even John. It is also possible that the Q materialdefines Jesus without directly utilizing the term "Messiah"because of the term's political connotations resulting from the messianic insurrectionsof Judasthe Galilean, Simon, and Anthronges following the death of Herod the Great (JosephusJ.W 2.4.1-3 ??55-65; Ant. 17.10.5-8 ??271- 85). These events, which would have been fresh in the popular memory of Jesus' day,would have associated the title "Messiah"with political rebellion and militaryrevolt-objectives contraryto the aims of Jesus.60The same reticence may have been shared by Jesus' earliest followers. Furthermore, that Jesus nowhere explicitlyidentifies himself as Messiah in Q is exactly what should be expected in view of similar silence among the sayings of Jesus found elsewhere in the Synoptic Gospels (especially Mark). Indeed, Q would be anomalous to its Synoptic environmentif it did report Jesus using "Messiah" as a self-reference. Finally, it is also possible that Q's lack of an explicit reference to Jesus as Messiah may be explained by the Jewish tradition that only God knew the time of the Messiah's coming (Pss. Sol. 17:21) and only God could disclose the Messiah'sidentity (4 Ezra 13:52).61The exclusive knowledge the Father has of the Son in Q-"And no one knows who the Son is except the Father" (Luke 10:22//Matt 11:27)-may be yet another pointer to Jesus' messianic identity. 9 London: OxfordUniversityPress, 1961. 60 The names "Sonof God"("Son"),"Sonof Man,"and "thecoming one" may have been open

to political interpretation as well. However, "Son of God" and "Son"are found in contexts of privacy in Q, thus making misinterpretationimpossible, while "the coming one" and "Son of Man" were oblique expressionsthat would not have been readilyapparentto the populace. 61 According to other early Jewish texts, God preserved the Messiah in a secret place (see 1 Enoch 46:1-2; 48:2-3; 62:7; 4 Ezra 7:28-29; 12:31-34; 13:26; 2 Apoc. Bar. 30:1-2; Odes Sol. 41:15). For discussion of the tradition that only God could disclose the Messiah's identity, see D. Flusser, "Two Notes on the Midrashon 2 Sam 7," IEJ 9 (1959) 99-109; R. N. Longenecker, The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (SBT 2/17; London: SCM, 1970) 73; J. C. O'Neill, "The Silence of Jesus,"NTS 15 (1960) 153-67; idem, "The Charge of Blasphemy at Jesus' Trial before the Sanhedrin,"in The TrialofJesus (ed. E. Bammel; SBT 2/13; London: SCM, 1970) 72-77.