Published online by Cambridge University Press: 08 June 2011
Jesus is never explicitly identified as the ‘messiah’ or christos in Q. The conspicuous absence of this particular term—so frequently used in the Pauline letters and the Gospels—is often taken to mean that the Q community was uninterested in, unaware of and/or rejected kerygmatic traditions which understood Jesus as a ‘messianic’ figure. Yet a careful analysis of the literary structure of Q 3–7 demonstrates that the redactor of Q both appropriated and subverted ‘traditional messianic expectations’ of a popular warrior-king by framing Jesus' baptism, temptation and Inaugural Sermon within announcement and confirmation passages that serve to both affirm and qualify Jesus' relationship to ‘messianic’ traditions. Located within a text dominated by the theme of eschatological reversal, the literary structure of Q 3–7 serves as a rhetorical defense in the redactor's construction of a new identity for Jesus.
1 Borg, Marcus J., The Lost Gospel Q (Berkeley: Ulysses, 1996) 27–8Google Scholar; Mack, Burton, ‘The Christ and Jewish Wisdom’, The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity (ed. Charlesworth, J. H.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1992) 214Google Scholar; Tuckett, Christopher, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1996) 214Google Scholar; Vaage, L. E., Galilean Upstarts: Jesus' First Followers According to Q (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1994) 90–1Google Scholar; Foster, Paul, ‘The Pastoral Purpose of Q's Two-Stage Son of Man Christology’, Biblica 89 (2008) 81–91Google Scholar, esp. 82.
2 See especially Kloppenborg, John S., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987)Google Scholar.
3 Tödt, H. E., The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Barton, D. M.; London: SCM, 1963)Google Scholar; Lührmann, Dieter, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle (WMANT 33; Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969)Google Scholar; Schulz, S., ‘Die Gottesherrschaft ist nahe herbeigekommen (Mt 10,7/Lk 10,9). Der kerygmatische Entwurf der Q-Gemeinde Syrien’, Das Wort und die Wörter (G. Friedrich FS; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973) 57–67Google Scholar; Edwards, Richard A., A Theology of Q (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1976)Google Scholar; Vaage, Galilean Upstarts.
4 Meadors, Edward P., Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Siebeck], 1995)Google Scholar; Hurtado, Larry, Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 229–44Google Scholar; Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus Remembered (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) 150–2Google Scholar; Stanton, G. N., ‘On the Christology of Q’, Christ and Spirit in the New Testament (ed. Lindars, B. and Smalley, S. S.; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1973) 27–8Google Scholar.
5 Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah; Neusner, Jacob et al. , Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (New York: Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar; Collins, John J., The Scepter and the Star: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Ancient Literature (New York: Doubleday, 1995)Google Scholar; Pomykala, Kenneth, The Davidic Dynasty Tradition in Early Judaism: Its History and Significance for Messianism (Atlanta: Scholars, 1995)Google Scholar; Laato, Antti, A Star is Rising: The Historical Development of the Old Testament Royal Ideology and the Rise of the Jewish Messianic Expectations (Atlanta: Scholars, 1997)Google Scholar; Cohn-Sherbok, Dan, The Jewish Messiah (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1997)Google Scholar; Oegema, Gerbern S., The Anointed and His People: Messianic Expectations from the Maccabees to Bar Kochba (JSPSup 27; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998)Google Scholar; Horbury, William, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM, 1998)Google Scholar; Day, John, ed., King and Messiah in Israel and the Ancient Near East (JSOTSup 270; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1998)Google Scholar; Hess, Richard S. and Carroll R., M. Daniel, eds., Israel's Messiah in the Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003)Google Scholar; Bockmuehl, Markus and Paget, James Carleton, eds., Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity (London: T&T Clark, 2007)Google Scholar; Zetterholm, Magnus, ed., The Messiah in Early Judaism and Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007)Google Scholar; Horsley, Richard A. and Hanson, John S., Bandits, Prophets, and Messiahs: Popular Movements in the Time of Jesus (Minneapolis: Winston, 1985)Google Scholar; Mowinckel, Sigmund, He That Cometh (trans. Anderson, G. W.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1954)Google Scholar; Klausner, Joseph, The Messianic Idea in Israel from Its Beginning to the Completion of the Mishnah (New York: Macmillan, 1955)Google Scholar.
6 Mowinckel, He That Cometh; N. A. Dahl, ‘Messianic Ideas and the Crucifixion of Jesus’, The Messiah (ed. Charlesworth) 389; David E. Aune, ‘Christian Prophecy and the Messianic Status of Jesus’, The Messiah (ed. Charlesworth) 411; Horbury, William, Jewish Messianism and the Cult of Christ (London: SCM, 1998) 25Google Scholar; Fitzmyer, Joseph A., The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 76, 78Google Scholar.
7 Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, 73, 82. Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 145–64, uses the term to refer to ‘an agent of God in the end-time who is said…to be anointed, but who is not necessarily called “messiah” in every passage’.
8 The book of Leviticus refers to the ‘anointed priest’ (הכהן המשיח) (Lev 4.3, 5, 16; 16.15). Deutero-Isaiah describes Cyrus as ‘his anointed’ (למשיחו). Elijah ‘anointed’ Elisha as a prophet (1 Kgs 19.16). See also Ps 105.15; 1 Cor 16.22; 1 Kgs 19.16; Isa 61.1–12; Joel 3.1; 1 Sam 24.6, 10; 26.16; 2 Sam 1.14, 16.
9 Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 33.
10 Mowinckel, He That Cometh.
11 2 Sam 7.11–16 and Ps 89.20–38.
12 Ps 2.7.
13 Ps 110.4.
14 Ps 72.8.
15 Ps 72.2–14; Gen 49.10, Num 24.17; Isa 10.34–11.5.
16 Dahl, ‘Messianic Ideas and the Crucifixion of Jesus’, 384.
17 Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 99.
18 The book of Daniel contains two references to ‘an anointed (one)’. Yet the lack of a definite article in Dan 9.25–26 requires the translation: ‘an anointed’ figure(s), not ‘the anointed (one)’. Daniel describes a time of tribulation ‘until an anointed one, a prince (עד משיח נגיד)’. Dan 9.26 marks another transitional period, predicting that ‘after threescore and two weeks an anointed one will be cut off, and will have nothing’ (יכרת משיח ואין לו). The author of Daniel refers to Cyrus' proclamation of support for the rebuilding of the Temple (Isa 44.29; 45.13; Zech 1.16; Ezra 6.14). Isa 45.1 identifies Cyrus as the ‘Lord's anointed’ (למשיחו). The ‘anointed’ who is ‘cut off’ may be a reference to Onias III, the ‘anointed’ high priest murdered during the reign of Antiochus IV in 171 B.C.E.; the ‘destruction’ of the city may be a reference to an invasion of Jerusalem by 168 B.C.E by Antiochus (1 Macc 1.29–39); and the ‘abomination that causes desolation’ may be a reference to an altar of Zeus that Antiochus installed in the Temple.
19 Neusner et al., Judaisms and Their Messiahs; Gruenwald, I., Shaked, S. and Stroumsa, G. G., eds., Messiah and Christos: Studies in the Jewish Origins of Christianity, Presented to David Flusser on the Occasion of His Seventy-Fifth Birthday (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr, 1992)Google Scholar; Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah; Stegemann, E., ed., Messias-Vorstellungen bei Juden und Christen (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1993)Google Scholar. Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 189: ‘we should think of a spectrum of messianic expectation’.
20 Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, 78; Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah, 5; Oegema, The Anointed and His People, 303; Pomykala, The Davidic Dynasty, 271; Karrer, Martin, Der Gesalbte. Die Grundlagen des Christustitels (FRLANT 151; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1990) 243Google Scholar; de Jonge, Marinus, ‘The Use of the Word “Anointed” in the Time of Jesus’, NovT 8 (1966) 132–48Google Scholar; Neusner et al., Judaisms and Their Messiahs; R. A. Horsley, ‘ “Messianic” Figures and Movements in First-Century Palestine’, The Messiah (ed. Charlesworth) 276–95.
21 Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah, 5; Sanders, E. P., The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Penguin, 1993) 240–1Google Scholar; Smith, Morton, ‘What is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures?’, JBL 78 (1959) 66–72Google Scholar. See also Baumgarten, Albert I., The Flourishing of Jewish Sects in the Maccabean Era: An Interpretation (JSJSup 55; Leiden: Brill, 1997) 153–4Google Scholar; Neusner et al., Judaisms and Their Messiahs; Charlesworth, ed., The Messiah; Collins, The Scepter and the Star.
22 Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 12.
23 Collins, The Scepter and the Star, 67. Dunn, Jesus Remembered, 622, acknowledges the diversity of messianic figures but concludes that the expectation of a warrior king was ‘one expression of a more diversely expressed hope, yes; but the most prominent and widespread of the various expressions of that hope’.
24 Levine, Amy-Jill, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus (New York: Harper San Francisco, 2006) 128–9Google Scholar, challenges the ‘warrior messiah’ model as an anti-Jewish construction derived from a dichotomy between the ‘Old Testament God of fear’ and the ‘New Testament God of peace’.
25 For prophetic figures, see Josephus on Jesus, son of Hananiah, ‘Theudas’ (Ant. 20.97–98) and the ‘Egyptian’ (War 2.261–62; Ant. 20.169–71). For (would-be) ‘kings’, see Josephus on Athronges (War 2.57, 60; Ant. 17.273, 278–85), Simon, and Judas, the son of Hezekiah (War 2.56; Ant. 17.271–72). During the Revolt, Simon bar Giora, the principal military commander in Jerusalem, entered Jerusalem as a Davidic king and was ultimately executed by Rome as ‘king of the Jews’ (War 7.29–31, 36, 153–54; 4.507–534). Josephus also mentions Menahem, who broke into Herod's arsenal and ‘returned like a king to Jerusalem’ (War 2.433–34). Josephus states that his fellow Jews were incited by ‘an ambiguous oracle’ (χρησμὸς ἀμϕίβολος) found in scripture (ίεροῖς γράμμασιν) describing how one of their countrymen would become the ‘ruler of the world’ (ἄρξει τὴς οἰκουμένης) (War 6.312). This ‘messianic’ ruler who would bring the whole world (οἰκουμένη) under his rule was interpreted by Josephus as referring to Vespasian, but this may have been a common Jewish hope (Tacitus Hist. 5.13; Suetonius Vesp. 4.5).
26 Kloppenborg, John S., ‘“Easter Faith” and the Sayings Gospel Q’, The Apocryphal Jesus and Christian Origins (ed. Cameron, Ron; Semeia 49; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990) 71–99Google Scholar, esp. 83.
27 Kloppenborg, ‘The Sayings Gospel Q’, 15.
28 Q 3.22; 4.3, 9.
29 Q 10.22.
30 Q 6.22; 7.34.
31 Verbin, John S. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000) 396Google Scholar, notes that there is ‘at least implicitly a Christology’ in Q. See also Streeter, B. H., The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins, Treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources, Authorship and Dates (New York: Macmillan Co., 1925), 291Google Scholar.
32 2 Sam 7.14; Pss 2.7; 72.1–7; 89.26; 1 Chron 17.13; 4QFlor; 4Q246; Mark 1.1; 14.61.
33 4 Ezra 13.37, 52; 1 En. 48.2–10; 52.4; Mark 14.61–62; John 12.34; Ps 118.26; Mark 11.9–10; Luke 19.28–38; John 12.13–15.
34 Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, 37; Puech, E., ‘Une Apocalypse Messianique (4Q521)’, RevQ 15 (1992) 475–519Google Scholar; Discoveries of the Judaean Desert XXV: Qumran Grotte 4 XVIII: Textes Hebreux (4Q521–4Q528, 4Q576–4Q579) (Oxford: Clarendon, 1998), 1–38Google Scholar; See also Eisenman, Robert, ‘A Messianic Vision’, BARev 17.6 (1991) 65Google Scholar; Eisenman, R. and Wise, M., The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered (Shaftesbury: Element, 1992) 19–23Google Scholar; Tabor, J. D. and Wise, M. O., ‘4Q521 “On Resurrection” and the Synoptic Gospel Tradition: A Preliminary Study’, Qumran Questions (ed. Charlesworth, James H.; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1995) 151–163Google Scholar; Vermes, Geza, ‘Qumran Forum Miscellanea I’, JJS 43 (1992) 299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schiffman, L. H., Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls: The History of Judaism, the Background of Christianity, the Lost Library at Qumran (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1994) 347–50Google Scholar; Collins, ‘The Works of the Messiah’, 98–112.
35 Harnack, Adolf von, The Sayings of Jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and St. Luke (trans. Wilkinson, John Richard; NTS 2; London: Williams & Norgate, 1908) 310–14Google Scholar; B. H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, 188; Vassiliadis, Petros, ‘The Nature and Extent of the Q Document’, NovT 20 (1978) 49–73Google Scholar, esp. 73; Polag, Athanasius, Fragmenta Q: Textheft zur Logienquelle (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979) 30–1Google Scholar; Zeller, Dieter, Kommentar zur Logienquelle (SKNT 21; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1984) 23Google Scholar; Sato, Migaku, Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditions-geschichte der Quelle Q (Inaugural dissertation; Evangelisch-Theologische Fakültat, Bern, 1988) 25Google Scholar; Jacobson, Arland, The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Sonoma: Polebridge, 1992) 85–6Google Scholar; Robinson, James M., ‘The Sayings Gospel Q’, The Four Gospels: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (ed. Segbroeck, F. van; BETL 100; Leuven: Leuven University, 1992) 361–88Google Scholar. See also Grundmann, Walter, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (THNT 3; Berlin: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1981 ), 106–7Google Scholar; Schürmann, H., Das Lukasevangelium (HTKNT 3/1; Freiburg: Herder, 1969)Google Scholar, 1.197, 218; Hoffmann, Paul, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NA8; 3d ed.; Münster: Aschendorff, 1982 )Google Scholar, 4, 39; Arland Jacobson, “Wisdom Christology in Q,” Ph.D. dissertation, Claremont Graduate School, 1978, 35–6, 152. For scholars denying the existence of Jesus' baptism in Q, see Neirynck, Frans, ‘The Minor Agreements and Q’, The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q (ed. Piper, R. A.; NovTSup 75; Leiden: Brill, 1995) 49–72Google Scholar; Mack, Burton L., The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (New York: Harper San Francisco, 1993) 8–9Google Scholar.
36 Meadors, Edward P., Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation (WUNT 72; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 253–77Google Scholar. Bultmann, Rudolf, ‘What the Saying Source Reveals about the Early Church’, The Shape of Q: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel (ed. Kloppenborg, John S.; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994) 33–4Google Scholar; originally published as ‘Was lässt die Spruchquelle über die Urgemeinde erkennen’, Oldenburgische Kirchenblatt 19 (1913) 35–7Google Scholar, 41–4, argues that the image of Jesus in Q contains ‘elements of the Jewish Messiah … sayings and stories fully bear the character of a messianic portrait. Jesus is consecrated as Messiah at his baptism. His struggle in the wilderness with the devil is a messianic testing. Elijah is his precursor; Jesus is the Messiah. His deeds are those of the Messiah (Matt 11.2–6//Luke 7.18–23)’.
37 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 252, argues that the absence of the term ‘Christ’ is not significant because ‘Christ’ is also not found ‘very frequently in the sayings material in the Synoptic Gospels’.
38 Manson, T. W., The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949) 39–148Google Scholar; Allison, Dale C., The Jesus Tradition in Q (Valley Forge: Trinity, 1997)Google Scholar; Jacobson, The First Gospel, 125, 130; Sato, Q und Prophetie, 35, 389; M. Sato, ‘The Shape of the Q Source’, The Shape of Q (ed. Kloppenborg) 156–79, esp. 166–7; Crossan, J.D., In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1983)Google Scholar, 156, 342–5; Robinson, ‘The Sayings Gospel Q’, 361–88, esp. 365–6; Sevenich-Bax, Elisabeth, Israels Konfrontation mit den letzten Boten der Weisheit: Form, Funktion und Interdependenz der Weisheitselemente in der Logienquelle (MThA 21; Altenberge: Oros, 1993) 267Google Scholar; Kirk, Alan, The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom Redaction in Q (Leiden: Brill, 1998) 364–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
39 Stanton, ‘On the Christology of Q’, 29, 35, argues that ‘scant attention has been paid to the opening sections of Q in recent discussions of its Christology and purpose’.
40 Kirk, The Composition of the Sayings Source, 367, 376.
41 Kirk, The Composition of the Sayings Source, 390.
42 Dieter Zeller, ‘Redactional Processes and Changing Settings’, The Shape of Q (ed. Kloppenborg) 123, citing Hoffmann, Studien, 199. Fitzmyer, J. A., The Gospel According to Luke I-IX: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (AB 28; New York: Doubleday, 1981)Google Scholar, 666, argues that ὁ ἐρχόμενος in Luke 7.19 is not a messianic title, but rather ‘the messenger of Yahweh’, Elias redivivus, whom Jesus rejects.
43 Although some scholars have speculated, appealing to Mal 3.1, that John may have expected the eschatological arrival of Yahweh.
44 Foster, ‘The Pastoral Purpose’, 84, 91, sees the role of ὁ ἐρχόμενος as complementary to that of the ‘son of man’ as the Isaianic events listed in Q 7.22 provide a ‘foretaste’ of the Coming One's future role as judge/son of man. Smith, Daniel A., Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q (NTS 338; London: T&T Clark International, 2007)Google Scholar, also focuses on the figure of the ‘Coming One’ in Q 13.34–35 as a redactional expression of Jesus' future eschatological role.
45 Robinson, James, “The Sayings Gospel Q,” in The Sayings Gospel Q: Collected Essays by James M. Robinson (BETL 189; eds. Heil, Christoph & Verheyden, Joseph; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 342Google Scholar. Luz, Ulrich, Matthew 1–7: A Commentary (trans. Linss, Wilhelm C.; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress, 1989) 184Google Scholar, notes that the temptation account's ‘twice-repeated title Son of God may demonstrate that from the beginning our pericope stood in juxtaposition with the baptismal narrative’.
46 Q, like Mark, begins with John and Jesus' baptism, and bears a striking resemblance to the ‘adoptionistic’ Ebionite tradition described by Epiphanius (Pan. 30.13.7) where he quotes the Gospel of the Ebionites' version of Matt 3.13–17 to include an additional passage from Ps 2.9 (‘this day I have begotten you’). See also Justin Dialogue with Trypho 88.8, 103.6.
47 Kloppenborg, Formation, 84–5, argues that ‘the Son of God Christology presupposed by the temptations demands the existence of a baptismal account containing this motif’. James Robinson, “The Sayings Gospel Q,” 343, argues that ‘The inclusion of Jesus’ being designated God's Son by the heavenly voice, or some equivalent, is needed in the narrative preface to Q for it to cohere'. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 148, views the temptation in Q as authenticating Jesus' divine sonship as pronounced in the story of his baptism.
48 Robinson, James M., Hoffmann, Paul and Kloppenborg, John S., eds., The Sayings Gospel Q in Greek and English (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2002) 78Google Scholar.
49 At several points in their respective accounts, Matthew and Luke agree against Mark: both drop Mark's references to John and the Jordan; both change Mark's aorist indicative use of βαπτίζω to an aorist participial form; both include the name Ἰησοῦς (whereas Mark has the name earlier); both change Mark's use of the verb σχίζω (σχιζομένους) to the verb ἀνοίγω, although Matthew uses the aorist passive indicative (ἠνεῴχθησαν) while Luke uses the aorist passive infinitive (ἀνεῳχθῆναι); and both change Mark's εἰς αὐτόν (‘on him’) to ἐπ᾽αὐτόν (‘onto him’). Webb, Robert L., ‘Jesus' Baptism by John: Its Historicity and Significance’, Key Events in the Life of the Historical Jesus: A Collaborative Exploration of Context and Coherence (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009) 98Google Scholar, points out that Matthew and Luke's agreements against Mark, although not identical, include ‘omission of the same words, addition of the same words, alteration of grammatical forms, and alteration of word order’.
50 Paul Hoffmann, ‘Die Versuchungsgeschichte in der Logienquelle’, BZ NF 13 (1969) 207–23, esp. 214; Hoffmann, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTAbh nf 8; Münster: Aschendorff, 1975) 74–8, 308–11, 326, argues that the temptation narrative explained ‘why the Q group did not participate in the Zealot movement’. See also Bosold, Iris, Pazifismus und prophetische Provokation (SBS 90; Stuttgart: KBW, 1978) 63Google Scholar. On the other hand, see Jacobson, The First Gospel, 89. See also Percy, Ernst, Die Botschaft Jesu. Eine traditionskritische und exegetische Untersuchung (LUA, nf 1/49.5; Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1953) 13–18Google Scholar.
51 Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 254. Bultmann, Rudolf, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (trans. Marsh, John; Oxford: Blackwell, 1963), 256Google Scholar; von Schlatter, Adolf, Der Evangelist Matthäus: Seine Sprache, Sein Ziel, Seine Selbstständigkeit: ein Kommentar zum ersten Evangelium (Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag, 1957 ), 95–112Google Scholar. Stanton, ‘On the Christology of Q’, 34–5, argues that the use of the term ‘Son of God’ is not only ‘Christological’ but ‘very probably a Messianic title here’ even though there is ‘polemic against false understandings of Messiahship’. Luz, Matthew 1–7, 185, notes that the ‘clear main accent’ requires ‘a Christological interpretation’ as the passage is clearly about Jesus' sonship. Luz acknowledges Hoffmann's thesis that a Christological interpretation may be ‘directed primarily against a political misunderstanding of sonship with God’. Yet Luz argues that ‘the rejection of false hopes or conceptions, Jewish or Christian, is … not the main concern of the pericope’ as the connecting link between the temptations is Jesus' obedience to the Word of God. Luz's proposal does not preclude this pericope from being a polemic against the kinds of temptations that Jesus needed to face. After all, the point of the narrative is to show how Jesus was tempted, not only how he responded to temptation. Following Luz's own admonition—that it is ‘certainly incorrect to claim such a mythical pictorial text for one single interpretation exclusively’—the temptation narrative can be seen as Q's illustration of how Jesus fulfills his role as ‘Son of God’.
52 James Robinson, “The Sayings Gospel Q,” 343.
53 Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 256; Catchpole, David R., The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1993), 230–1Google Scholar.
54 Tuckett, The Messianic Secret, 1; Meier, J. P., ‘From Elijah-like Prophet to Royal Davidic Messiah’, Jesus: A Colloquium in the Holy Land (ed. Donnelly, Doris; New York: Continuum, 2001) 63, 71Google Scholar; Witherington, Ben III, The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990)Google Scholar; The Gospel of Mark: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2001)Google Scholar, 143, 41; France, R. T., The Gospel of Mark: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 31Google Scholar; Taylor, Vincent, The Gospel According to St. Mark: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Indexes (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1981), 377Google Scholar; Manson, T. W., The Servant-Messiah: A Study of the Public Ministry of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1956), 71–2Google Scholar.
55 Meadors, Gary T., ‘The “Poor” in the Beatitudes of Matthew [5.3] and Luke’, Grace Theological Journal 6.2 (1985) 305–14Google Scholar.
56 Arnal, Jesus and the Village Scribes, 160. See Q 3.8; 4.5–8; 6.20–23, 27–28, 32–34; 7.9, 22; 12.2–3; 13.18–19, 20–21, 30; 14.11, 16–18, 26; 16.18; 17.33.
57 Joseph, Simon J., ‘A Social Identity Approach to the Rhetoric of Apocalyptic Violence in the Sayings Gospel Q’, History of Religions (2011)Google Scholar, forthcoming.
58 See also D. H. Juel, ‘The Origin of Mark's Christology’, The Messiah (ed. Charlesworth) 449–60; R. G. Hamerton-Kelly, ‘Sacred Violence and the Messiah: The Markan Passion Narrative as a Redefinition of Messianology’, The Messiah (ed. Charlesworth) 461–93.
59 Dibelius, Martin, Die urchristliche Überlieferung von Johannes dem Täufer (FRLANT 15; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1911) 6–8Google Scholar; Ernst, J., Johannes der Täufer: Interpretation—Geschichte—Wirkungsgeschichte (BZNW 53; New York: de Gruyter, 1989) 55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 115; Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 126. On Q 7.18–23 being a later addition to an earlier layer of Q, see Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 166–70; Cotter, Wendy, ‘ “Yes, I Tell You, and More Than a Prophet”: The Function of John in Q’, Conflict and Invention: Literary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q (ed. Kloppenborg, John S.; Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1995), 135–50Google Scholar, esp. 135. On the disconnect between the Baptist's question and Q 7.22, see Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, 126. As tradition, see Davies, W. D. & Allison, D. C. Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew (3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 198–1997), 2.244–6Google Scholar; Dunn, J. D. G., Jesus and the Spirit: A Study of the Religious and Charismatic Experience of Jesus and the First Christians as Reflected in the New Testament (London: SCM, 1975), 56–60Google Scholar; Kümmel, W. G., ‘Jesu Antwort an Johannes den Täufer: Ein Beispiel zum Methodenproblem in der Jesusforschung’, Heilgeschehen und Geschichte: Gesammelte Aufsätze, 1965–1977 (ed. Grässer, E. and Merk, O.; MS 16; Marburg: Elwert, 1965–78)Google Scholar 2.177–200, esp. 195–200. See also Hieke, Thomas, ‘Q 7, 22: A Compendium of Isaian Eschatology’, Ephemerides theologicae Lovanienses 82.1 (2006) 175–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
60 James Robinson, ‘Building Blocks in the Social History of Q’, in The Sayings Gospel Q, 500.
61 Labahn, Michael, ‘The Significance of Signs in Luke 7.22–23 in the Light of Isaiah 61 and the Messianic Apocalypse’, From Prophecy to Testament: The Function of the Old Testament in the New (ed. Evans, Craig A.; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004) 153 n. 33Google Scholar.
62 Stanton, ‘On the Christology of Q’, 32; Barrett, C. K., The Holy Spirit and the Gospel Tradition (London: SPCK, 1947) 118Google Scholar; Kümmel, Heilsgeschehen und Geschichte, 2.434; Lührmann, Logienquelle, 26.
63 Stanton, ‘On the Christology of Q’, 32.
64 Labahn, ‘The Significance of Signs’, 158.
65 Labahn, ‘The Significance of Signs’, 153; See also Cotter, ‘ “Yes, I Tell You”’, 140–2; McDonald, J. I. H., ‘Questioning and Discernment in Gospel Discourse: Communicative Strategy in Matthew 11.2–19’, Authenticating the Words of Jesus (ed. Chilton, B. D. and Evans, C. A.; NTTSup 28/1; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 344Google Scholar.
66 4Q521 2 ii 1,7–8, 12.
67 Fitzmyer, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Christian Origins, 37. For the original publication, see Puech, ‘Une Apocalypse Messianique (4Q521)’; Discoveries of the Judaean Desert XXV, 1–38; Eisenman, Robert, ‘A Messianic Vision’, BARev 17.6 (1991) 65Google Scholar; Eisenman and Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 19–23; Tabor and Wise, ‘4Q521 “On Resurrection”’; Vermes, Geza, ‘Qumran Forum Miscellanea I’, JJS 43 (1992) 299–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 347–50; Collins, John J., ‘The Works of the Messiah’, DSD 1 (1994) 98–112Google Scholar.
68 Puech, ‘Une Apocalypse Messianique (4Q521)’, 475–519; Discoveries of the Judaean Desert XXV, 1–38; Eisenman, ‘A Messianic Vision’, 65; Eisenman and Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 19–23; Tabor and Wise, ‘4Q521 “On Resurrection”’; Collins, ‘The Works of the Messiah’, 98–112.
69 Kloppenborg, ‘The Sayings Gospel Q’, 330 n. 101: ‘The deeds of the Messiah listed in 4Q521 bears an uncanny resemblance to the deeds of Jesus listed in Q 7.22’. See also Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q, 405 n. 72: ‘It would appear that a synthesis of Isaian texts was already in circulation by the time of the composition of Q (and certainly, Matthew) and that Q 7.22 reflects this exegetical development’.
70 Tabor and Wise, ‘4Q521 “On Resurrection”,’ 163.
71 Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 107. Foster, ‘The Pastoral Purpose’, 86, notes that ‘the catalogue of activities drawn from Isaianic passages do not readily fit into a hitherto known set of Messianic expectations’.
72 Puech, E., ‘Some Remarks on 4Q246 and 4Q521 and Qumran Messianism’, The Provo International Conference on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Technological Innovations, New Texts, and Reformulated Issues (ed. Parry, Donald W. and Ulrich, Eugene; STDJ 30; Leiden: Brill, 1999) 552Google Scholar; Evans, Craig A., ‘Qumran's Messiah: How Important Is He?’, Religion in the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Collins, J. J. and Kugler, R. A.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 135–49Google Scholar, esp. 137 n. 17; Eisenman and Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 19; Tabor and Wise, ‘4Q521 “On Resurrection”’, 162; Charlesworth, J. H., “Have the Dead Sea Scrolls Revolutionized Our Understanding of the New Testament?” in The Dead Sea Scrolls Fifty Years After Their Discovery: Proceedings of the Jerusalem Congress, July 20–25, 1997 (eds. Schiffman, L. H., Tov, Emanuel & VanderKam, James C.; Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society/The Shrine of the Book, Israel Museum, 2000), 129Google Scholar; Brooke, George J., ‘The Pre-Sectarian Jesus’, Echoes from the Caves: Qumran and the New Testament (STDJ 85; ed. García-Martínez, Florentino; Leiden: Brill, 2009), 46Google Scholar. As non-sectarian, see Vermes, Geza, ‘Qumran Forum Miscellanea I’, JJS 43 (1992) 303–4CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Schiffman, Reclaiming the Dead Sea Scrolls, 347; Bergmeier, R., ‘Beobachtungen zu 4Q521 f2, II, 1–13’, ZDMG 145 (1995) 44–5Google Scholar. Collins, ‘The Works of the Messiah’, 106, is undecided.
73 Eisenman and Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered, 19; Martinez, Florentino Garcia, ‘Messianic Hopes in the Qumran Writings’, The People of the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Martinez, F. Garcia and Barrera, J. Trebolle; Leiden: Brill, 1995)169Google Scholar; Puech, ‘Une apocalypse messianique’, 498–9; Discoveries of the Judaean Desert XXV, 18–19, 37; ‘Messianism, Resurrection and Eschatology at Qumran and in the New Testament’, The Community of the Renewed Covenant: The Notre Dame Symposium on the Dead Sea Scrolls (ed. Ulrich, E. and Vanderkam, J.; Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame, 1994) 235–56Google Scholar; Stuhlmacher, P., Wie treibt man biblische Theologie? (Neukirchen–Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1995) 32Google Scholar; Betz, O. and Riesner, R., Jesus, Qumran und der Vatikan, Klarstellungen (Giessen: Brunnen, 1993) 112Google Scholar; García Martínez, ‘Messianische Erwartungen in den Qumranschriften’, 183–5. John J. Collins has suggested that the messianic figure of 4Q521 (and so perhaps the Jesus of Q 7.22) is a ‘prophetic messiah of the Elijah type rather than of the royal messiah’ (Collins, ‘The Works of the Messiah’, 98–9). See also The Scepter and the Star, 117–22. For criticism of Collins' position, see Neirynck, Q 6.20b–21: 7,22, 58–9 n. 16. While it is true that prophets could be ‘anointed’ and that this figure preaches ‘good news’ to the poor, as does the figure in 11QMelchizedek ii 18, יבשר in 4Q521 does not refer to a ‘herald’, as מבשר does in 11QMelchizedek. Furthermore, in 4Q521, the figure is not explicitly identified as announcing the ‘good news’; rather, it is the Lord who does so. Second, the ‘anointed of the spir[it]’, in 11Q13 2.18 is not necessarily a prophetic figure, for 11Q13 prefaces its description by identifying the figure as the one ‘about whom Dan[iel] said’, which, if 11Q13 is quoting from Dan 9.25, refers to an ‘anointed prince’.
74 Robinson, ‘The Sayings Gospel Q’, 5.
75 Robinson, ‘The Sayings Gospel Q’, 5.
76 Collins, ‘The Works of the Messiah’, 107. See also Tabor and Wise, ‘4Q521 “On Resurrection”,’ 161. Koch, Klaus, ‘Heilandserwartungen im Judäa der Zeitenwende’, Die Schriftrollen von Qumran: Zur aufregenden Geschichte ihrer Erforschung und Deutung (ed. Talmon, S.; Regensburg: Pustet, 1998), 107–35Google Scholar, esp. 116; Labahn, “The Significance of Signs,” 166. But see also Zimmermann, J., Messianische Texte aus Qumran: Königliche, priesterliche, und prophetische Messiasvorstellungen in den Schriftfunden von Qumran (WUNT 2/104; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1998) 343–89Google Scholar, esp. 343 n. 84. For a more skeptical position, see Novakovic, Lidija, “4Q521: The Works of the Messiah or the Signs of the Messianic Time?” in Qumran Studies: New Approaches, New Questions (eds. Davis, Michael Thomas & Strawn, Brent A.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 225Google Scholar; Allison, Dale C., The Intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q (Harrisburg: Trinity, 2000), 112Google Scholar. Kvalbein, Hans, ‘Die Wunder der Endzeit—Beobachtungen zu 4Q521 und Mt. 11.5p’, ZNW 88 (1997) 111–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; ‘The Wonders of the End-Time: Metaphoric Language in 4Q521 and the Interpretation of Matthew 11.5 par’, JSP 9/18 (1998) 87–110Google Scholar, stresses the differences between 4Q521 and the gospel tradition in arguing that the miracles in Isaiah should be read as metaphorical language for the renewal of Israel, not references to literal individual persons.
77 Labahn, ‘The Significance of Signs’, 161, cites 7.31; 11.29–32, 51.
78 Labahn, ‘The Significance of Signs’, 157: Q 7.23 ‘functions as a literary-sociological link. On the negative side, 7.23 is directed against “this generation”… On the positive side, the beatitude strengthens the group, which acknowledges itself to be safe and secure in the light of the promise of salvation’.
79 Labahn, ‘The Significance of Signs’, 157, citing Cameron, Ron, ‘“What Have You Come Out to See?” Characterizations of John and Jesus in the Gospels’, Semeia 49 (1990) 35–70Google Scholar.
80 Kirk, The Composition of the Sayings Source, 380; Sevenich-Bax, Konfrontation, 326; Hoffmann, Studien, 214–15; Cotter, ‘ “Yes, I Tell You”’, 135–50, esp. 140–1; Kloppenborg, John S., ‘Literary Convention, Self-Evidence and the Social History of the Q People’, Semeia 55 (1991) 77–102Google Scholar, esp. 93–4; Robinson, ‘The Sayings Gospel Q’, 361–2.
81 Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ, 252, notes that Q describes Jesus in ‘more exalted (?)’ terms than ‘messiah’.