Last updated 10th July 2024: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 February 2009
The Sayings Gospel Q is notable for lacking an account of Jesus' death.1 It is surprising that one early Christian document is apparently so indifferent to an event which plays a profound role in others (e.g., Romans, Mark). Scholars have, to be sure, observed that the issue of persecution and/or death is often referred to in Q, and many have come to believe that these references are casting an implicit glance at the death of Jesus himself. According to this line of thought, early Christians would have used the deaths of the prophets to connect Jesus' death with those of his followers. I do not intend to argue against this. Rather, I will propose that there is also another view according to which Q related Jesus' death and those of his followers. This view involved common, Cynic-Stoic ideas of the time.
1 Kloppenborg, J., The Formation of Q (Studies in Antiquity & Christianity; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 85–7.Google Scholar
2 This article employs the convention of referring to Q in accordance with the chapter and verse numbers of Luke. Thus, Q 13.34–5 indicates the Q passage which may be reconstructed on the basis of Luke 13.34–5 and its parallel, Matt 23.37–9.
3 Of the remaining three passages, two (Q 6.27–9 and 12.4) will not be dealt with here. However, for a variety of Cynic and Stoic parallels, cf. Downing, F. G., Christ and the Cynics (JSOT Manuals 4; Sheffield: JSOT, 1988) 23–5, 66–7.Google Scholar
4 Steck, O. H., Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten (WMANT 23; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967).Google Scholar
5 Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick, 288–9.
6 On Q and the issue of a generally prophetic outlook, cf. now Sato, M., Q und Prophetie (WUNT 2nd series 29; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1988).Google Scholar
7 Cf. Hoffmann, P., Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (NTAbh neue Folge 8; 2nd ed.; Münster: Aschendorff, 1972) 170–1Google Scholar; Jacobson, A., ‘The Literary Unity of Q’, JBL 101 (1982) 386Google Scholar; Schulz, S., Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich: Theologischer, 1972) 343Google Scholar; Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 111–12, 201, 228–9; Miller, R. J., ‘The Rejection of the Prophets in Q’, JBL 107 (1988) 225–40Google Scholar. Cf. also Polag, A., Die Christologie der Logienquelle (WMANT 45; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977) 91, 93.Google Scholar
8 Lührmann, D., ‘The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q’, JBL 108 (1989) 64Google Scholar. Emphasis his.
9 For our purposes here, it is not necessary to arrive at a precise reconstruction of this pericope. On reconstructing Q, cf. Polag, A., Fragmenta Q: Textheft zur Logienquelle (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979)Google Scholar. Polag's reconstruction is reprinted in translation by Havener, I., Q: The Sayings of Jesus (Good News Studies 19; Wilmington: Michael Glazier, 1987)Google Scholar. Cf. also Kloppenborg, J., Q Parallels (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988)Google Scholar, idem, ‘The Sayings Gospel Q: Translation and Notes’, in Kloppenborg, J. S., Meyer, M. W., Patterson, S. J., and Steinhauser, M. G., Q-Thomas Reader (Sonoma, CA: Pole-bridge, 1990)Google Scholar. Note, as well, the ongoing work of the Society of Biblical Literature Q Section (chaired by Kloppenborg), and of the International Q Project, jointly sponsored by the SBL Research and Publications Committee and the Institute for Antiquity and Christianity. On reconstructing Q 6.22–3, cf. Kloppenborg, J., ‘Blessing and Marginality: The “Persecution Beatitude” in Q, Thomas & Early Christianity’, Forum 2/3 (1986) 36–56Google Scholar. On reconstructing Q 11.47–51, cf. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 141–7. On the integrity of 11.47–51, cf. Miller, ‘The Rejection of the Prophets in Q’, 227–9; Schulz, Q, 340. On reconstructing Q 13.34–5, cf. the literature cited by Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, 227 n. 229.
10 The lament over Jerusalem is often placed in the mouth of a personified Wisdom. However, the presence of a wisdom motif in 13.34–5 has now been challenged by Miller (‘The Rejection of the Prophets in Q’, 235–8).
11 The question of Thomas' relationship to the canonical Gospels continues to be debated. For a survey of the scholarship, cf. F. T. Fallon and R. Cameron, ‘The Gospel of Thomas: A Forschungsbericht and Analysis’, ANRW II 25.6 (ed. W. Haase and H. Temporini; Berlin and New York: de Gruyter, 1988) 41–95. More recently, C. W. Hedrick (‘Thomas and the Synoptics: Aiming at a Consensus’, Second Century 7 [1989–90] 39–56) and S. J. Patterson (‘The Gospel of Thomas: Introduction’, in Q-Thomas Reader, 86–8) argue for the independence of Thomas. K. R. Snodgrass (‘The Gospel of Thomas: A Secondary Gospel’, Second Century 7 [1989–90] 19–38) argues that Thomas is not dependent on canonical Gospels in a direct, literary fashion, but is dependent on the same, general, oral tradition. Tuckett, C. M. (‘Thomas and the Synoptics’, NovT 30 [1988] 132–57)Google Scholar argues that Thomas may be dependent on the Synoptics.
12 This is not to say Mark 8.34 has influenced Q here; it merely raises the possibility. In any event, the meaning of Q 14.27 is not seriously affected either way.
13 Kloppenborg, Q–Thomas Reader, 67. Boldface type indicates identical vocabulary.
14 I do not feel it is necessary to distinguish between Cynic and Stoic elements in treating the philosophers pertinent to this study. Malherbe, A. J. has articulated a number of differences between Cynicism and Stoicism (‘Pseudo-Heraclitus Epistle 4: The Divinization of the Wise Man’, JAC 21 [1978] 42–64Google Scholar; cf. also idem, ‘Self-Definition among Epicureans and Cynics’, Jewish and Christian Self-Definition 3: Self-Definition in the Greco-Roman World [ed. B. F. Meyer, E. P. Sanders; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982] 46–59)Google Scholar. Such differences do not militate against the present argument, however, since the issues addressed appear to be common to both schools of thought. The ideas which are relevant for our purposes can be found in a philosopher who considered himself a Stoic, like Seneca, and in one who considered himself a Cynic, like Dio Chrysostom. These ideas seem ultimately most at home in a Cynic context. If one were to draw lines of influence with respect to these ideas, they would almost certainly run from Cynicism to Stoicism. However, first-century CE Greco-Roman popular philosophy was an eclectic mix in any case, and my concern here is not to label Q ‘Cynic’ or ‘Stoic’. Labelling it in this way is unnecessary to show that it seems to be using ideas drawn from the general ideological stock of Greco-Roman popular philosophy. Tuckett, C. M. (‘A Cynic Q?’, Bib 70 [1989] 351–5)Google Scholar takes certain commentators on Q to task for making an inadequate distinction between Cynicism and Stoicism. He may well be right on this score, but I fail to see how the issue detracts from basic claims that Q often points in a Greco-Roman philosophical direction rather than, say, an Old Testament direction. Indeed, if Q echoes ideas found in both Cynicism and Stoicism of that time, it simply shows how deeply embedded those ideas were in Greco-Roman popular philosophy. More precision between Cynicism and Stoicism may be needed when discussing Q, but that need does not obviate the overall argument. For more on this issue, cf. Downing, F. G, ‘The Social Contexts of Jesus the Teacher: Construction or Reconstruction’, NTS 33 (1987) 446CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, ‘Quite like Q. A Genre for “Q”: The “Lives” of Cynic Philosophers’, Bib 69 (1988) 203–4 n. 25.Google Scholar
15 Although this call is, as indicated, couched in terms of a willingness to die, we should not be indifferent to the occasions on which philosophers actually lost their lives. Cf. especially Tacitus Annals 15.60–4; Avi-Yonah, M., Hellenism and the East (Ann Arbor, MI: Published for the Institute of Languages, Literature and the Arts, The Hebrew University, Jerusalem, by University Microfilms International, 1976) 54Google Scholar; Dudley, D. R., A History of Cynicism (London: Methuen, 1937) 137.Google Scholar
16 Perhaps the reader is thinking here of 2 Mace 6.28 and 4 Maccabees. In those texts, we do find such a call. But the setting is quite different. In Q 14.27, the notion that one must suffer and perhaps even die with Jesus is put forward in an implicit, almost casual manner, as if such a thing is to be understood as a matter of course. To be a true Christian, one must of course follow Jesus on the way of the cross. In the Maccabean literature, on the other hand, a very peculiar – indeed, virtually unique – set of circumstances pertains. The Jews are facing one of the most poignant, murderous threats to their existence as a people. The call to follow a model in suffering and death is voiced in response to that particular set of circumstances. It is by no means the case that the call is offered as a basic, implicit sine qua non for being a Jew in general. Rather, the call is the only, desperate solution to a dire threat. I will argue below that one need not see Q 14.27 as a response to a similarly desperate persecution of Christians. It is more likely that Q is echoing here the philosophers' sense that one must simply be ready, as a matter of course, to treat the body as ‘not one's own’ and suffer pain and death. In any event, it seems clear that both 2 Maccabees 6.28 and 4 Maccabees are themselves under the influence of popular Greco-Roman philosophy in this regard. Cf. my treatment of them in The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul's Concept of Salvation (JSNTSup 18; Sheffield: JSOT, 1990) 87–99.Google Scholar
17 Epictetus, The Discourses as Reported by Arrian, the Manual, and Fragments (LCL; 2 vols.; London: Heinemann/Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1928) Encheiridion 1.Google Scholar
18 Seneca, Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales (LCL; 3 vols.; London: Heinemann/N.Y.: Putnam's, 1917–25) 24.3.Google Scholar
19 Seneca Ad Lucilium 24.3.
20 On the general reception of Socrates by the later philosophical tradition, cf. Döring, K., Exemplum Socratis (Hermes Einzelschriften 42; Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1979)Google Scholar; Long, A. A., ‘Socrates in Hellenistic Philosophy’, CQ 38 (1988) 150–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21 Seneca Ad Lucilium 24.6.
22 Seneca Ad Lucilium 24.6–7.
23 Seneca Ad Lucilium 24.9.
24 For other pertinent passages in Seneca, cf. De Providentia in Moral Essays (LCL; 3 vols.; London: Heinemann/Cambridge, MA: Harvard, 1928–1935) vol. 1, 3.2–14Google Scholar; Ad Lucilium 67.7–16; 98.12–14.
25 Epictetus 4.1.152–4.
26 In Epictetus, cf. also 3.20.13 and 4.7.29–31.
27 I will refrain from presenting more first-century CE Cynic-Stoic models of suffering and death because I discuss the issue at length and give numerous examples in The Noble Death, 113–41. For further evidence, cf. also F. G. Downing, Christ and the Cynics, 21, 23–5.
28 It should be noted here that Q 14.26 has a definite Cynic flavour. Epictetus advises that the Cynic not marry and have children, so as not to be burdened by them in his philosopher's mission (3.22.69). Elsewhere, Epictetus portrays the ideal philosopher as saying, ‘Look at me … I am without a home, without a city… I sleep on the ground; I have neither wife nor children …’ (3.22.47; cf. also 3.3.5–7; 3.24.14–16, 85–7; 4.1.100, 111, 159, 166; 4.7.5, 35; 4.8.31; Fragment 4; Encheiridion 7, 11, 18, 26). Musonius Rufus, Epictetus' Stoic teacher, has some very positive things to say about families. Still, when the question of a choice between family or God comes up, his response is ultimately as unequivocal as that of his student (Lutz, C. A., Musonius Rufus: ‘The Roman Socrates’ [New Haven: Yale University, 1947] 101–7)Google Scholar. The view that one's loyalty to what is right supersedes loyalty to family seems deeply imbedded in the philosophical tradition (cf. Diogenes Laertius 6.72, 88; Dio Chrysos-tom 20.11 [on the philosopher's need for a quiet, retired life]; Lucian Demonax 55; Pseudo-Diogenes Epistle 47). Hommel traces the sentiment back through Socrates to Democritus (Hommel, H., ‘Herrenworte im Lichte sokratischer Überlieferung’, ZNW 57 [1966] 10–11)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
29 Cf., e.g., Sanders, E. P., Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985)Google Scholar; Charlesworth, J. H., ‘The Historical Jesus in Light of Writings Contemporaneous with Him’, ANRW II 25.1 (ed. Haase, W.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982) 451–76.Google Scholar
30 Cf., e.g., Bickerman, E., From Ezra to the Last of the Maccabees (N.Y.: Schocken, 1962) 153–65Google Scholar; Hengel, M., Judaism and Hellenism (2 vols.; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974) 1.103Google Scholar; Meeks, W., The Moral World of the First Christians (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 65Google Scholar. Cf. also Hengel, M., The ‘Hellenization’ of Judaea in the First Century after Christ (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990) 50.Google Scholar
31 Edwards, D. R., ‘First Century Urban/Rural Relations in Lower Galilee: Exploring the Archaeological and Literary Evidence’, Society of Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 169–82Google Scholar; Overman, J. A., ‘Who Were the First Urban Christians? Urbanization in Galilee in the First Century’, Society of Biblical Literature 1988 Seminar Papers (Atlanta: Scholars, 1988) 160–8Google Scholar; Stambaugh, J. E. and Balch, D. L., The New Testament in Its Social Environment (Library of Early Christianity; Philadelphia: Westminster, 1986) 93.Google Scholar
32 Overman, ‘Who Were the First Urban Christians?’, 161. Cf. also Freyne, S., Galilee, Jesus and the Gospels (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988) 171Google Scholar. Cf. also Kinneavy, J. L., Greek Rhetorical Origins of Christian Faith: An Inquiry (Oxford: Oxford University, 1987) 56–82Google Scholar. On the continuing excavations of the Hellenistic city Sepphoris, cf. Meyers, E. M., Netzer, E., Meyers, C. L., ‘Sepphoris – “Ornament of All Galilee”’, BA 49 (1986) 4–19Google Scholar; idem, ‘Artistry in Stone: The Mosaics of Ancient Sepphoris’, BA 50 (1987) 223–31Google Scholar; Overman, ‘Who Were the First Urban Christians?’, 164–8; Wilcox, M., ‘Jesus in the Light of his Jewish Environment’, ANRW 2 25.1 (ed. Haase, W.; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1982) 145Google Scholar. On possible connections between Jesus and Sepphoris, cf. Batey, R. A., ‘Jesus and the Theatre’, NTS 30 (1984) 563–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar; W. Bösen, Galiläa als Lebensraum und Wirkungsfeld Jesu (Freiburg, Basel, Vienna: Herder, 1985) 70–2.Google Scholar
33 Musonius was born ‘probably sometime before 30 A.D.’ (Lutz, Musonius Rufus, 14).
34 Lutz, Musonius Rufus, ‘Fragments’ 29.
35 Lutz, Musonius Rufus, ‘Fragments’ 28.
36 Lutz, Musonius Rufus, ‘Fragments’ 27.
37 Cf. Seeley, The Noble Death 113–41.
38 Epictetus 4.1.163.
39 Epictetus 4.1.168–9.
40 Lutz, Musonius 59.
41 Cicero Tusc. 1.42.100.
42 Cicero Tusc. 1.43.102.
43 Cicero Tusc. 1.43.104.
44 Cicero Tusc. 1.42.100–2.
45 Teles, Teles (The Cynic Teacher) (Society of Biblical Literature Texts and Translations 11; Graeco-Roman Religion Series 3; ed. and trans. E. O'Neil; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1977) 17H.Google Scholar
46 Adapted from O'Neil's translation, 18H.
47 Cf. also Xenophon Hellenica 2.3.56.
48 Downing, F. G., ‘A bas les Aristos: The Relevance of Higher Literature for the Understanding of the Earliest Christian Writings’, NovT 30 (1988) 222.Google Scholar
49 Downing, ‘A bas les Aristos’, 221.
50 I acknowledge here the help of Ron Cameron (Wesleyan University), Burton Mack (Claremont Graduate School), and Robert J. Miller (Midway College).
