(Library of New Testament Studies Volume 338) Daniel A. Smith - The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in The Sayings Gospel Q-T & T Clark (2006) PDF

LffiRARY OF N EW TESTAMEN T STUDIES
338
Editor
Mark Goodacre
Editorial Board
John M.G. Barclay, Craig Blomberg, Karhleet~ E. Corley,
R. Alan CuiJl<pJl<r, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evan•, Stephen fowl,
Robert Fowler, Simon J. Gathereole, john S. Kloppenborg, Miehael Labahn,
Robert Wall, Suvc Waltoo, Rober:t L Webb, Cattin H. Williams
THE POST-MORTEM VINDICATION
OF JESUS IN TilE SAYINGS GOSPEL Q
DANIEL A. SMITH
·"
t&tclark
Copyright 0 Danid A. Smith, 2006
Published by T&T Clark lnternatiooal

A Contitutun1 nnprint
Tbe ToW<r 8uilclina, II York Road. London SEI 1NX
80 Maiden Lane, Suite 704, New York, NY I 0038
www.tandtc.Jork.com
All rights reserved. No port of this publication may be <<produced or

trans:mitted in any form or by any mean$, t leCU'Onic or mec:hanica.l,
including photocopying, recording or any informacion storage or retrieval
system, without permission in writing from the publi,hers.
Dani<l A. Smith has asserted his right under th< Copyright, Designs and
Patents Act, 1988, to be id<ntilied as the Author of this work.
Bci.Uh ubruy Cataloguing-in-Publication Dara

A coralogu< r«<rd for thi• boolc i• available from the Brirish Libr2ry
Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production Limited

CoNTENTS
Preface VII
Abbreviations ix
Introduction 1
Chapter 1
The Dtath and ResurrtCtion of jesus in Q? 5
Q and the Death of Jesus 5
Q and the Resurrection of Jesus 21
Chap~r 2
Q 13.34-35, The Jerusalem Lamenr: Survey of Research 31
Q 13.34-35 with 11.49-51 as Sayings of Wisdom 33
Q 13.35b as a Condit ional Prophecy 36
Q 13.34 ~35, the Deuterooomistic Tradition, and rhe Wisdom Myth 38
Q 13.34-35 and tbe Rejection of Jesus 40
Q l3.35b: the Assumprion of Jesus? 42
Q 13.34-35 and tbe Sequence of Q, Again 45
Implications 46
Chapter 3
Assumption in Antiquity 49
Assumption in Craeco-Roman Literature 53
Assumption in jewish Literature 66
Assumption in Early Christian Literature 86
Implications 92
Chapter 4
The Death and Assumption of jesus in Q 13.34-35 94
The Reconwuction of t he Saying 94
The Rejection of Jesus and the Abandonment of Jerusalem 100
lllyw u~lv: 'I tell you •. .' 103
The Assumption of jesus: Posr-Monem Vindication, Exaltation,
and Parousiio 108
On the Origin and Development of Q 13.34-35 119
Exa.rsus: Th• AISutnption of Jesus and Body-Soul Dualism in Q 121
vi Contents
ChapterS
The Significance of Assumptioo in Q 13.3~·35 for Other Q Materials 123
Absence, Invisibility, and Return io Q 123
A Clu:iStologic•l Basis for Corporate Vindication in Q 130
Q 11.29·30: The Sign of Jonah I ~3
Implications 149
Chapter 6
The Assumption of jesus in Q and Early Christianity !51
Exaltation Without Resurrection? IS I
An Assumption of jesus from the Cross? 155
Mark's 'Empty Tomb' Narrative {Mk 16.1·8) ! 59
Implications 166
Conclusion
Resurrection and/or Assumption - How Different is Q? 168
Bibliography I 73
Index of References 193
Index. of Modern Authors 203
PREFACE
Many people bave contributed to this work at \'arious stages,. and I wish ro
expre<s my t hanks to them. I am especially grateful to John Kloppenborg,
whom I have been privileged over man)' years co counr as teac.her, men~
tor., and colleague. I have benefited greatl)· from his careful oversight, sage
advice. and cominuing encouragement, and this book is much improved
thanks (0 dialogue with him. l would also like to t-hank others who havt
read earlier drafts of this book., particularly Dale Allison, Terry Donaldson,
Leif Vaage,. and Michael Steinhauser. Their careful re:Jding of my work a_nd
insightful suggestions for its improvement a re m uch appreciated. Michael
Kolarcik and Andrew lincoln also were hdp£ul, offering their perSJ*ctivts
on panicular questions.
Jn addition, numero us individuals have bctn gracious with t heir time and
with their own research, pro viding me with invaluable advice and with either
difficult to find or unpublished materials' Alan Kir k, John Kloppenborg,
Andy Reirne~ james M. Robinson. Risto Uro, joseph Verheyden, Dieter
Zeller, and the members of the International Q Projecr. Thanks are a lso due
co Hannu Aaho, who prepare.d an English translation or a Finnish essay by
Risto Uro. I am a lso graceful to Huron University College, and in particular
the Revd Dr John Chapman, Dean of Theology, for support gi,·en to my
work.
Finally and aOOve all, for her encouragement a nd support, I thank my
wife Patricia, to whom, with our two children Matthew and james, this
work i$ dedicated with love.
Feast of the Ascension, 2.5 May 2006

W ndon, Ontario, Clnoda
AIIBREVIATIONS
AB Anchor Bible
ABD D.N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible
DictioMry (6 vols.; New York: Doubleday,
1992)
ACJU Arbc:iten zur Geschicbte des al'ltiken j~.Jdtntv.rnl
und des Urchristc:ntums
AfT AIIUt'kan Journal of Theology
An8ib Analeclll biblica
ANET J.B. Pritchard (ed.), Ancient Near Eastern Te>:tJ
Relating ro the Old Testanunt (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 3rd edn, 1969)
ANF Anti ~Nicene Fathers
ANRW H. Temporini and W. Haase (eds.), Aufsmg
und Niedergang der romischen Welt:
GtS<hi<hre und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der
neueren Forsdnmg (Berlin: W. de Cruyte;
1972-)
ARW Ar<hiv fUr Religionswissensd>aft
ATANT Abhandlungon zur Th<alogie des Alten und
Neuen Testaments
BOAC W. Baue<, F.W. Danker, W.F. Arndt, and F.W.
Gingrich, A Greek- English Lexicon of the New
Testament tJnd Otbf!T Early Christian Literaturt
(Cbkago: University of Chicago Press, 3rd edn,
2000)
888 Bonner biblische Beittige
BETL Bibliothcca ephemeridum theologicarum lovani·
ensium
Bib Biblica
BibRes Biblical Resurch
BJRL BuUetin of the jolm Rylands Umversity Library
of Manchester
BZ Bib/ische Zeiuchri{t
BZNW Beihefte zur ZNW
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CChr Corpus Chris-rianorum
CJG Corpus inscriptionum graecarum
X A blneviatio,.
Con8NT Coniecr:.tnea biblica, New Testament

ETL Ephemerides theologicae lovanienses
Fz8 I'Or$<:hung •ur Bibel
HNT Handbuch zum Neuen Tesramenc
HTKNT Herders thcologlscher Kommentar zum Neuen
Testament
HTR Harvard Theological Review
ICC lnternalional Critical Commentary
IC lnscriptiones graecae
IQP lnternarionaJ Q Proiecr, directed by J.M.
Robinson, P. Hoffmann and j .S. Kloppc:nborg
JBL ]ouf11al of Biblical Literature
]JS journal of]ewisl1 Studies
]S) journal (or the Study of judaism in the Persian,
Hellenistic and Roman Period
jSNT joumal for the Study of the New Testament
jSNTSup journal for the Study o{ the New Testament,
Supplement Serie-s
)SP journal {or the Study of the Pseudepigrapha
JSPSup Journal (or the Study of the Pseudepigrapha,
Supplement Series
)TS ]oumal of Theological Studies
LCL Loeb Classical Lib(ary
lD Lectio divina
li<S l-ukan Sondergut, or special material
LSJ H.G. Liddell, R. Score and H.S. jones, Greck-
l'.ng/i,h Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 9th
edn, 1968)
LXX Septuagint
MT Masoretic Text
NovT Nouum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum, Supplements
NRSV New Revised Standard Version
NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen
NTl New Testament Library
NTS New Te>tament Studie•
NTIS New Testament Tools and Srudtes
OTP J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha (2 vols.; New York:
Doubleday, 1983}
PAA)R Proeetdings of the American Aeademy of
Jewish RtseJJrch
PG J.-P. Migne (ed.), Patrologia cursus complcta
.. . Series graeca {166 vols._. Paris: Pctit-
Montrouge, 1857-83)
PVTG Pseudepigrapha Veter1s Testamemi graece
Abbreviatio,.
RB R•v"" bibliquo
R•l Religion
RSR Redu:rdJu de scinsce rtllgi•uu
SANT Stddit.o zum Altt-D und Neuen Testament
SB Souroes bibliques
SBLSCS SBL S.ptuaginr and Cogna« Srudies
SBLSP SBL Settrinar Papns
SBS Srucrg;~tter Bibtlsrudien
SBT Srudic. in Biblieal Theology
sc Sources chrftiennes
SJLA Studies in Judaism in Lare An1iquir~
SNTSMS Sociery for New Tesramenr Srudies Monograph
Series
SUNT Studien 2.ur Umweh des Ncuen Tatamems
SVTP Srudia in Veteris Testamenti pscudcpigrapha
THKNT Theologiscber HandkommentGr zum Neuen
Testament
TQ Tbeologisd>e QutZrtolsdmft
TRE Tbeologisd>e Realeny.lopiiJie
ru Texte und Unt~rsuchungen
TynBul Tyrulak Bulktin
vc Vigilitu christiaM~
v.l, varia lc:crio, or variant reading
WBC Word Biblical Commcnrary
WMANT Wit.5enschahJiche Monograph1en zum Alten
und Neuen Tenamr:nt
WUNT Wi$$c:nKh"ftlichc Untersuchungen zum Neucn
Testament
ZNW Zeituhri{l fiir Ji• neutmnnrtmtllcht
WiJsemcha(t
ZRGC Zeruchri{l fur Relieio••· unJ Geistugeschid"•
ZTK Zeitschri{l fur Tbeologi• und Kirch•
AliBREVIATIONS OF ANOENT SOURCES
I CILm. I Ckment
I Ett. I (f.thiopi<;) £nod>
!Qap G<n" IQ20 UQ GenesiJ Apocryphon)
1 En. 2 (Slavonic) Enoch
2 En. (A} 2 (Slavonic) Enoch, recension A
2 En. I)) 2 (Slavonic) Enoch, recen1ion J
J En. J (Hebrew) Enoch
2 Bar. 2 (Syriac) Baruch/= !opocalypSI of Boruch}
• Mau. 4 Maccabees
4 F.tra • &.ra [= 2 E&d. 3-H j
xli Abbreviations
'Ag. Ber. Aggadat Bereshit

Ant. Lib., Metam. Antonious Liberalis, Me.tamorphosts
Apoc. Eli;. Apocalypse of Elijah
Apollodorus, Bibl. Apollodorus, Bibliotheaz
Atrian, Anab. Arria~ Anabasis
Augustine, Tract. Ev. job. Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John
M. B~tr. Mishnah, Berakhot
Cassius Dio Cassius Dio, Roman History
Chaer. Chariton, Cbaereas and Callirboe
Cicero, Resp. Cicero, De republica
Clem. Alex., Strom. Clemen< o£ Alexandria, Strcmuzta
Copt. Apoe. Elij. Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah
Der. Er. z,.r. Derek Eretz Zuta
Dese. Chr. ad In(. Descent of Christ into Hell
D<Ht. Rab. DeHteronomy Rabbah
Did. ApoSI. Didascalia Apostolorum
Dieg. Diegesis
Oiogenes lacnius Diogenes Laertius, Lives o{ Famc>us
Philo.sophers
Diod. Sie., Bibl. bist. Diodorus Siculus, Bibliotheca historica
Dion. Hal., Ant. rom. Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Antiquitatts
romanat
Ennius, Ann. Ennius, Annal~
Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbab
Ck. Apoc. Eua Greek Apocalypse of Ezra
Cos. P<t. Gospel of Peter
Hermas, Sim. Hecmas, Similitude
Herm~, Vis. Htonas, Vision
Herod ian Herod ian, History of the Roman Empire
Herodotus, Hist. Herodorus, Histories
Hist. jos. History of Joseph
Homer, II. Homer, Iliad
Homer, Od. Homer, Odyssey
lranaeus, Haer. Iranaeus, Adversus haereses
Josephus, Ant. josephu~, Antiquities of the jews
Jub. jubilees
LAB Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum
Lam. Rab. Lamenta#ons Rabbah
Uv. Proph. Lives of the Prophets
Livy Titus Livius, Ab urbe condita
Luc:lan, Luct.. Lucian, Funerals
Ludan, Peregr. Lucian, The Passing of Peregrinus
Mek. Pisha Mekhilta de Rabbi l•hmael, Pisba cracrare
Midr. Midrasb
Nan: jos. Na,.ative of joseph of Arimatbea
Ovid, Fa.t. Ovid, Fasti
Abbreviations xili
Ovid, Metam. Ovid, Metamorphosu

Paus ... Desa. Pausanias, Des,ription of Greece
Philo, Abr. Philo, De Abrahamo
Philo_ Mwt. Nom. Philo. De mutatione nominu.m
Philo, Quaest. i• Geo. Philo, Quaestiones in Genesin
Philo, &ur. Philo, De sacri(iciis Abe/is et Caini
Philo, Vit. Mos. Philo, De vita Mosis
Philostrarus, Vit. Apo/1. Philostratus, Ufe of Apollonius of Tyana
Pirqe R. F). Pirke Rabbi Eli<:er
[Plutarch,] Cons. Apo/1. [Plutarch,] Consolatio ad Apollonium
Plutarch, Num. Plumrcb, Numa
Plutarch, Rom. Plutarch, Romulus
Plutar<h, Thes. Plutarch-. Thesms
Pro~ Jas. Prorevange/ium of James
Pss. Sol. Psalms of Solomon
Q ues. 8tJTth. Questions of Bartholomew
Servius, Aen. S.rvius, Commentary on the Aennd of Virgil
T. Abr. Testament of Abraham
T. Abr. (A) Tutament of Abraham, recension A
T. Abr. (8) Tsstomtmt of AbrtJham, recension B
T. Ash. Testament of Asher
T.}ob Testament of Job
T. Mos. Testament of Moses
Tg. Neof. Targum Neofiti
Tg. Ps.·}. Targum Pse>~do·Jonatban
)\ Sanh. jerusalem Talmud, Sanhedrin ttactote
INTRODUCilON
For the past hundred or more years, one of the central issues in the discus·
sion of the place of the Sayings Gospel Q in early Christianity has been irs
relationship ro those-circles for which the death and resurrection of jesus
were of foundational kc:rygmatic significance. Some scholarS have main~
tained that Q presumes a kerygmatic interpretation of jesus' death and
a belief in his resurrcction. Such an approach may enable Q ro be fixed
in relation to other earl)' Christian groups about which mort is known
directly, but it also requires some: explanation of Q's general .silence on these
matr:e.rs. ln contrast, others have argued that Q originated in a communicy
which was interested in jesus 110t as a dying and rising savioux, but rarhc:.r as
a sagC" whose sayings had ongoing importance. This approach explains why
Q is silent about Jesus' death and r~urrection, bur it has no way tO explain
the grounds on which those who composed Q expected his future presence
as the 'Coming One' or the 'Son of man'.
Given the unlikelihood that the Q group could have been ignorant o f
jesus' death by crucifixion in jerusa]em, certain Q tex.ts must be read with
Jesus• death in v-iew, even though none of them explicitly refers tO it {Q
14.27, for instance). 1 Q's pOlemic against 'this generation' indicates chat t he
rejection of jesus was given a 'deuteronomistic' interpretation. Acc:ording
w the deureronomistic view of histocy, calamitie$ that befell Israel resulted
from Israel's reiec:tion, mistreatment, and {sometimes) murder of prophet-s
sent by Cod.' A ela.. ic example is found in 2 Cbron. 24.18-25: Zechariah
the priest utters an oracle against the people* who conspire against him and
stone him in tbe temple; joash is defeated by t he outnumbered Aramites {vv.
23-24), and this is interpreted as the direcr result of the people abandoning
Cod and Cod abandoning them (vv. 20, 24). Thu• in Q the rejection (and
face) of john, jesus, and indeed the Q people arc seen in connec-tion with
chis pattern of behaviour, with the result that judgmem is announced on
'rhis generation' (see, for instance, Q 7.31·35; 11.49·51). For Q, Jesus is
(implicitly) t he paradigmatic instance of the characteristic mistreatment and
1. According 10 convention, Q texts J.tc referenced here-jn :.ccording to l..uk.ao

<:hapter ~l\d vct.Je. Thus. Q 1•4.27 indK:ate:s the JOW'« of Mt. 10.38 and Lk. 11.27.
2. An imponant srudy is thar of O.H. Steck, l~ratJ und d4s gewalwme Cnchia.
tkr Prophrtnt: Untn#ldtu.Hftn tid Obn-lit{mmg des tkuU:rQn.omiubnt Geubichlbiltks
im Alu" TeJtament, Spiitjudnltum urul Urdlrisf.vstum (WMAN'T; 2.3; Neukirchc:n--Vluyn:
NC'ukirchener Vc:rtag, 1967).
2 Post·Mcxtem Vindi<lllion of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
murder of prophets by Israel, so that if Q depic:ts jesus a$ a rejected and

murdered prophet or emissary, but does not show evidence of a belief in his
resurrection, then the question arises of his post-mortem vindication.
Many of these issues converge in Q's Jerusale.m Lament logion {Q 13.34-
35). The main hypothesis of this study is that the characteristic language and
asooc:iations of •assumption' - the bodiJy removal of a human being from
eanh tO heaven ar (or as) the end of their life- are present in this saying. For
Q J3.35b predicts tbe 'disappearance' of jesus: 'You will not see me unril [the
time comes when) you say, •Blessed is the Coming One in the name of the
Lord ... •3 The 'not seeing' language is closely similar to that used in Hellenistic
assumption stories in both rhe Greek and Jewish traditions. This •not seeing'
is only temporary, however: Jesus will be seen again, and will be met with an
acclamation. Thls exemplifies the typical jewish correhirion between assump-
tion and eschatological function. A reading of Q 13.34-35 along these: lines
was first proposed in 1985 by Dieter Zeller,' and the idea has subsrquently
been raken up by a few othe.rs., but this srudy fully investigates the implica~
tions for tbe rheology of Q of a reference to assumption in this saying.
Assumption, however, was usually conslde.red a bodily removal of a
person from earth tO heaven while still alive. Could assumption have been
considec~d a means of vindication for the post· mortem jesus? There is
evidence: &om both Graeco-Roman and jewish sources that as.sumption
language could be applied to someone who had died. Two significant such
instances in the jewish tradition a re the 'righteous one' in Wisdom 2-S and
the children of job in the 1ost<tmenl of job 39-40. With this background
in view, assumption is, in the conte-x t of Q 13.34-35 and more broadJy in
Q, a viable answer to the problem of the gap between Jesus' death and bis
future activity as the Son of man.
Other asperu of Q are also clarified with refe rence to this understand-
ing of the post-mortem vindication of jesus. Parabolic materia_! concerning
absent and returning masters, related comp<>$itionally to material about
an unseen and suddenly visible Son of mJn, can be re-evaluated in light of
the correlation between assumption and parousia in Q 13.34-35. The basis
of corporate vindication i.n Q em also be reconsidered, particularly given
significant parallels between the non-..arrhly jesus of Q and heavenly repre·
sentative figures in Second Temple jewish literature. In addition, the.~sign of
Jonah' saying (Q 11.29-30) could possibly be illuminated if Q 13.3.5 depictS
jesus as someone rescued from dearh.
J. tkrdn, diKWsiom of the roconsuu«ion of Q begin from J.M. Robinson. P.

Hoffmann. and J.S. Kloppenborg (td~ ). Tlu Critia~l E.diJHm of Q~ A SJ"OPsi.s int:lud-
iltg tin Gos~l~ of Matthew •rul LN.J:•, ~rk and Thomas with £,.gll$h, Gmna" o-nd
french Trt:UUiatkms of Q tmd 1'/,omas (Htrmencia Supplemenu, 1; Mjnneapolis: Forueu;
Leuver.1: Peet~r$. 2000). English tunslationll are normally uken ftom Robinson et at..
CriticAl Edition of Q, though $0mttimts witb mi.nor modifications.
<4. D. ZeiJet, 'EnuikJcuog zur Ankunft :~Is Mtru~Chtruohn (U n. J.4f.; 11, 29£.)".
iD A C..... d. rb.mgift, t,.,u, '"'It' Sy.o<>pt;,p.., .r lu t.<Us (Fesuebrik ). Dupoo.q
tD. 123; Pari$: Q :r.f. 1985), pp. 51~30.
/ntToduction 3
In order ro offer some corroboration of the hypothesis that Q uses a$Sump-

tion (not resurrection) to express convictions about JC$us• vindication and
return, other texts from ear1y Christianity suggeuive of a similar view are
also investigated. The most significant text is Mark·s cEmpty Tomb' sroty
(Mk 16.1-8), wbich describes the absence of Jesus' body from the romb but
narrates no 11ppearan~s of me risen one. For the author of Mark, of course,
the empty romb signifies bodily murreetion (Mk 16.6), but the underlying
source material seems to have described bodily disappearance:. This suggt$ts
rhar assumption as a mode of the po$t•mortem vindkarion of jesus had c:ur-
rency in a group other than the Q community.
The implications of this hypothesis are signi6cant. It will be disputed
how •assumption' should be regarded in relation to 'resurrection': were the
rwo {competing?) alternatives, or even conc:epts distinct from one another?S
Notwichsranding, if assumption language was used in some circles in this
way, a fuller understanding of the terms in which jesus• post·mortem exis·
renee was conceived becomes possible. Paul lays heavy emphasis on the
appearances of the risen Christ (1 Coo 15.5-8), and some $Cholars- james
Robinson, most prominently - have proposed that the earliest conceptu:·
a1itations (or, be«er, visuaJi:tarions) o £ Jesus• po.st-mortem e,xjstence were
luminous in nature.' Assumption language as used in Q, by contrast, even
though on the surface a 'li,.rary' aMwer to the problem of Jesus' death and
future, expresses a bodily disappearance, and according to Robinson such
•bodily' understandings o f the resurrection were sec:ondary and apologetic
in nature. Exactly how and when such a belief originated must remain
unclear, as will be seen below. But the presence of •assumption• in Q - a
•bodily' understanding of jesus' post-mortem existence - at least pushes
the evidence for such a view funher back into the Synop-tic tradition than
Robin$on suppo$Cd.1 It also introduces into Robinson's reconstruction
another concepcualizalion altogether, and one that should not be simply
equated with 'resurrection' or 'exaltation\
The present srudy holds that the Two-Document Hypothesis (Mark and
Q) offers the best account of tbe relationsbips among the Synoptic gospels.
According ro this view, Q was a documentary sayings collection use-d inde·
pendtndy by rhe authors of Matthew and luke. • Q repre$ents the rextu.:al
5. S« L W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Drvotionto Jesus in Earliest ChristidniJy

iGnn d R~pids: E!crdmans, 2003), pp. 2 33-39.
6. j.M. Robi'O$On. 'jt$U$- From Ea.srer to Valeotin~ (or to the ApOstles' Creed}',
/BL 101 (1982), pp. S-J7, esp. pp. 7-17.
7. '"I'h.us the ~pologetic intereot evident in (the empty tomb J(c>ries otl each of the
C4t~-«>nic.aJ $(1$~1s reflects a KCOndary stage io tbc transmission of r<surr«:tioo app«r·
anc:es., a defense ag.~inst a tmislint«pr«ation of a more origioaJ .st:age• (Robinson, 'jesus
-.from Easter•, p. 12l.
8. See C.M. Tu~ke«, Q and th, History of Ettrly Christianity: Studi#'S Off Q
!Peabody, Mk Hendrickson, 1996), pp. 1- 39; j.S. I(Jopp<nbo<J, lix<avating Q' Th<
His.IOry 4714 Sockll S,tting of tire Sayinl$ Gos~l (Minneapolis: Forttes:s; Edinburgh: T&T
Cbrk, 2000), pp. 11-111.
4 Post-Mortem Vindication of J.sus in the Sayings Gospel Q
evidence for the theological activiry of a community who~ rtlationship to

othe.c groups within early Christianity cannot be taken for granted, and at
least in a limited se-nse should be undtrstood as a •gospel' in itS own tight.'
1·ht- present work bears out this view of Q as •che Sayings Gospel', Along
such lines h can also be said that Q has a 'christology', that is, a set of
theological concepts and symbols related to the sigaHicance of jesus, even
though the document does not contain the term 'Christ' or 'Messiah' . 10
Finally, although recent studies of the compositional history of Q have
much to commend them, u the present studf deals with Q in irs final form,
that is, as far as it can be reconstructed from Mauhew and Luke. The
benefit of chis approach consists in its affirmation that the 6n-t~l form o f Q is
the result of incemiona) redactional work; this a1lows crucial texts to stand
in relationship to rhe whole document, so that even if materials suc-h as Q
13.3-4---35 came into the document at a later stage in irs compositional his 4
tory, their influence in providing new contexts and even new interpretations
for compositionally older materials may be fully a ppreciated."
9. J.S. Klo-ppenborg, , ..F.an1!t F:~.ith" :1.nd the Sayings Gospel Q', in R. Cameron
(ed.}, The ApocrypbtJJ jt:Sus t~nd Christian O,igins (Stmeia, 49; Atlanta: Scholars, 1990),
pp. 11-99 (71); A.O. Jawbwn, TW Fint G()lj>el: An lntrOthu:tion to Q (Found.a tiom
:1.nd F:~.ceu; Sonoma~ CA: Polebridge, 1992), pp. 19-32; F. Neiryock, 'Q: From Source fo
Go.pel', £TL 71 11995), pp. 421- 30.
10. for a concise summary of Q'i c;h.ristology, ~ H.T. Fledderma.nn. Q: A
Ruonssruaion an4 Commentary (Biblical Tools and Studies, 1; J..euyc:n: Pec:te-~ 2005),
pp. 129-43: 'The Son o-f Man $ymbol do-minates Q's chri$1olo-gy. Q folds other aspttU oi
chtittology into the c:omprf'hensive Son of Man symbol' (p. 143}.
11. For example. J .S. Klo-p_penbo-rg, Tbt Formalicm of Q: Tr4fut(Wies in AndenJ
w;~ Colleaion$ ( Phibd~lphia: fortres-s, 1987); M. Sato, Q und l'r~bn.~: St~
Utr Gattwngs- un.J Traditionsg~kbiebk tkr Quelle Q (WUNT~ 2/29; TO.bingen: Mohr
s;.b«k, 1988).
12. Tucke~ Q t~nd th~ History, pp. 75-82, advocates this approac.h..
Chapter l
THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS IN Q?
Q and the Death of jesus
Praccic:ally since Q 6nt came to be viewed as a document in its own right,

rather than merely as a factor in the solution of the Synoptic Problem,' a
major point of discussion has been t he relationship between Q and those
early Christian texts which hold the death and resurrection o f jesus ro he of
primary kerygma.tic importancc.ln the a bsence of source-critical evidence for
nartcltive passion material in Q. scholars sought to explain why such material
was not present without questioning whether Q originated within kerygmatic
Chriscianiry. Some have argued that Q was originally intended tO $upplement
other texts in which a kecygmatk view of the death and vindication of jesus
was explicit, in which case it would be quite understandable that Q, as a
sayings collection) would lack passion material. Others argued that the
absence of passion material in Q resulted from the document's chronological,
or geOgJaphical, or generic limits, although some continued to argue that Q
did concain a pa-ssion narrative.
With the rise of redaction criticism, however, there came the possibility
that Q represemed a distinct sphere of early Christia:niry, one which under--
stood the significance of jesus in non-kcrygmatic terms. Some scholars now
hold that Q does not presume a salvific underscanding of jesus' death, or
thar Q represents a Jcsus•movetnem entirely independent of kerygrnatic
Christianity, a movement whose interest lay enrirdy in jesus• teachings and
for which the death of Jesus was neirher theological axiom nor problem.1
1. Until the che cstly rwcntit-th erorury, Q wu treated 'more as a convenient

postulate whkh facilitated cerr.ain t)Cplanarion!ll o( the Synoptic probleO'I: thAn at •
roonu.meo~ attesting«> <11 p~nicular moment or moments in tbe h~tory of early Christianity',
j .S. Kloppmbotg and LE. Vu~. '£arty Cluin ianity, Q aod jesu.t! ~ Sayings Gospd
and Method in the Studr of Ch.risci.an Origins•, in KJop~nborg and Vaagt-(eels.), Early
ChriJtitJnity, Q and }#sus {Semt-i2o, .SS; Atlam:a.: Scholars, J 991 ~. pp. J-lof. (3).
l. For .a rccmc and tborough survey see Kloppmborg, &wwJ.i!Jg _Q, pp. 3$3 ..19.
6 Post-Mortem Vindie<Jtion of }ltlus in the Sayings GosptJ Q
1. Q and the Passion Kerygma
The ea.rliest discuss-ions of the contents of Q either allowed that the document
contained no passion narrative, or sought some reason why, if it had
contained p3$$ion material, it had left so linJe trace in d\e passion narra-
tives of Matthew and Luke. From either perspective, the cc.ntral issue was
the distin<:tiven~:Ss of Q -whether or nor it was a 'gospel'. To give an early
exam pte., Bernhard Wei€ thought Q was not intended to have, nor needed tO
have, an account of the passion: such 'could not possibly be given without a
continuous histocical narrative, such as our source neither offered nor was
intended to offer·' .' There would be no point in the 'oldest source' (as Wei.B
called Q) giving the events of Jesus• trial and death, since those facts were
'universally known'. The oldest source fixed the recollections of rhe primitive
aposdes in a written form, and was 'practically inrended for purposes of
instruction and edification' .• Thus WeiB saw Q as originating in the primitive
Christian community and having a supplemental place alongside thefacts of
jesus? passion. As will be seen below, this was to become a commoo e w:pla·
nation for Q's lade of passioo material.
For such early scholar>, Q's lack of pasoion material meant that it could
noc be considered a 1gospel', by which was- meant - in clear deference co the
shape of the canonical gospels- a biographical n-arrative with an_emphuis
on Jesus' suffering, death and resurrection. Along such lines, Adolf JU~cher
concluded ch.ar Q was nOt a •complete Gospel like that of Mark•, since 'there
appears no trace of it in the stories of the Passion and Resurrection'. Ruled
out as a: gospel~ then, Q was a sayings collection ~composed without any
exercise of conscious art', except that the sayings had bten joined at rimes
on the basis of internal connections.s Similarly, F.C. Burkitt believ~ asking
whether Q contained passion material was •·practically equivalent to asking
whether Q was a '"('.ospel", ... or a mere collection of sayings'.'
Unlike Jiilicher, however, Burkin argued that Q did contain p-assion
material. He argued that afte.r the Last Supper, Luke no longer uses Mark as
the basis of his narrative, and asked 'whether this narrative of the Passion
may not have been derived from the same source as most of Luke's non-
Marc:an mate-rial, i.e. from Q its-elf'.' Burkitt provided a.s evidence mOiterial
in Luke 22, some of which is in 'minimal Q', but some of which is unique
tO luke or derived from Mark.' George Castor noted that t he unique Lukan
3. b. Wei£, A A.W"-Wal of ltstTOduaion to the Ntw Tutament (tram. A.j.K. Da~

2 vo[s.; Ntw York: funk & Wagoalls, 1887-89), p. 2.238.
4. W~£. Matntal, p. 2.239.
S. A. jUJidttr. An Introduction to th1 Nf!W Teltlll'ttf'-nl (ttilm. J.P. Ward; London:
Sm;th 8< £lei<!; 19041, p.lS6.
6. fo:C. Burkitt, The Gtnpel H;story tmd Its Trtmsmission (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
2o4 e<ln, 19071, p. 1)2.
7. &urkin, CosP<I History, U4. See alto Burkitt, The bfl#sr Souras of lht Life
of jesus (Bor.ton: Hough~oo Mifflin, 1910)~ p. lJO.
8. Burkin, Emliu~ Sources. 113 n.l. Sec-also idem, Gospel Hist.ory. 135.
7
material Burkitt appealed tO 'is much more closely related to the narratives
peculiar to Luke that have preceded than tO the common material of Q'.'
Furthermore, as Wilhelm Bussmann showed, the Q material thar remains is
not directly related to the death or resurrection of jesus, but is only found
in a passion context due to Luke's editorial placemeot. 1D A few others used
the SO<alled 'minor• agreements of Marthew and Luke against Mtuk in the
passion narratives as grounds for positing a Q passion narrative, but w ithout
generating a great deal of scholarly support. n
Sucb vieW$ were the m.ioority', however: it was more widely considered
that Q contained no passion narrarive,11 although tht-ee was considerable
disagreement as to the implications of this. Some found its absence in Q
to be reason for doubting the exlstenct: o f Q as a document, 13 and today at
least N.T. Wright remains reluctant to rule out the possibility of a Q passion
narrative. 14 The discussion has. therefore focused on some central issues..
First, why did Q contain no passion material? Solutions have been sought.
generaUy speak ing, either in the nature or purpose of Q or in the beliefs of
the commuoity responsible fo r Q. Closely related is a second issue, whether
or not Q shows evidence of a knowledge of or interest in jesus' death at all.
According to some scholars, Q texts that describe suffering or persecution
associated with disciple$bip or with the rejection of God's envoys imp1)' a
9. G.D. Castor, J<.Litthew's Sgyings of}1sus: The Non·Alare#lt Common SOtttu of

Mattbftv tJ1'UJ LMitt fChicagQ: Unh·m:irr of Os_icagQ Pres&, 1918).• p. 15.9. Other aH.:ropts
to argue for a Q pusion namttivt ~}so focuW aaenrjo(l on l.uk:an Sondergut. See, for
Uut.ance, J.V. Ba.ttlet, "The Sources of St. Luke's Gospel\ in W. Sanday {«<.J, Studws in Uu~
S)'lfOptie Ptoblmr by Memlw-s o{th~ Uniwr$ity of Oxfwd tOx(ocd: Clarendon, 1.911}, pp.
114-63 (ll2}; W.£. Bundy, )~.ills and th~ First Tbru Go$f1ds (Dmbridgt, MA: Harvard
Univertity Prm., 19$5), p. 48\.
10. W. Buss.mann, Synoptische St.uaim: H#{t2, Zru Retknqudlt (Halle: Wai$cnh~u$,
1929J, pp. 116-17. Stt .t.lso Kloppe:nborg, Fonnotion, pp. 85-86.
11. E. Hinch, Dit Frilhgtsdtich~ des £vang~liums: Heft 2, Die Vorlagen dt:1 Lukiu
,.'l(/ du Sotulerpl Ms M~Jttbiius (lubingen: Mohr Sicbock, 1941 1~ pp. 245--48; s.tt aJso
E. Franklin, 'A P2Uion Namti'e for Q?•, in C. -Rowlind and C. Fktehc-.r·Lcwis (eds-.},
Ul'fd4rttflndin& StNdy;ng dlld ReQ<l;ng (fesrscbrift J. Ashron; jSNTSup, 153; Shd"fitld:
JSOT Press. 1998J, pp. 3()--47. Fori bdef criric:isrn o(HWKQ', position, see Kloppenb<>rg.
JiomuJtiCHI, p. 86.
12. B. H. Stteetcr. 'The Original Extent of Q', in SwdWs in the Synoptic Probltm, pp.
184-208 {203); also Srreerer. The Ft.Hir Gospds: A Study of Origins (London: MacmliJan,
1924J, p. 292; V.H. Stanton, T1H GosJH;ls 4S Hisuwi<41 Docu~nu: Vol. 1, Th~ Synopti(
Gospels (Cambridge: Cambridge Unive-n.iry Ptell$, 19091, p. 105.
13. See W.L. Knox, ~ Sottrus of th~ Synoptic Cosptls: Vol. 2 , St. LuJte and St.
M#tthftv {Cambricise: Cambridge Uni~ei'Jity Ptei$, 19$1), pp. 3...S. PcOpQnentll of source
theories othet than the Two D«~o~ment HypOthesi$ have shared a similar vlew: A.M. Farrer..
•On 0 i$pCI)Jin&: with Q', in D.E. Nintbam (cd.,, S/ll.dks in the GoSf/'6/s (In .Memori.am R..H.
J..lihtfoo<; Oxford, RuH Blackwell, 11SS), pp. SS-88; WJL Fume~ Th< Gotp<l of}es•"
Th6 P•l-()r4/ hkvturu ofUN Synoptic P-roblem (Louisville. KY: Wesanin!lter j ohn Knox,
1994).
14. N.T. Wright, Christi4n OrigiM tmd the Q•nti<m of God: Vol. 1, 1M Nnu
Tutdmnft 11ndW P~p~ o(God (Min~pc>lis: Fo~ 19.9lJ, p. H I.
8 Po.st·Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayir•gs Gospel Q
knowledge of how jesus died. Others emphasize t-hat Q nowhere, mentions

Jesus' persecution o r death specifically and conclude that Q was formulated
by a community of Jesus• followers whc»c-interests lay exclusively in jesus·'
sayings.
Concerning the formet lssu~ Adolf von Harnac.k otrgued that since 'the
Passion and aU references to the Passion are absent from Q', it 'was not a
gospel at all in the sen~ chat the SynoptiC$ are'. This lack of passion material
meant that Q was a document without any historical climax or. continuity,
and one wh<»e 'hori>.on' W>Os 'absohJtcly bounded by Galilee', and which
bad no 'clearly discernible bias, whether apologetic, didactic, e<:-clcsiastical.
nacionaJ. or anti-nationaf'.tS A few others. includingj.C. Hawkins, thoughr
the contents of Q were limited co sayings deriving from the minlsuy in
Galilc~. 14 A related idea held by more recent scholars .is that Q represents the
licerary result of a relatively conservative tradition which kept post-Easter
themes distinct from the authcmi<.: voice of]esus (so, for example, think Pctr
PokornY and others). 17
Another approach, mentioned above, was to consider chat Q presupposes
exactly what it fails to mention, since irs fu nction was co supplement ocher
traditions or texts in use. TypicaJiy, scholars drew conclusions from the
contents o r shape of Q conc::~,ming th~ function the document had within the
early Christian community; but Q was always understood as supplementing
che proclamation of Jesus• salvific death and resurrection, which such
scholars presumed to h~.wc fundamcnrol (j.c., foundational) signi6c~nce for
all early Christian communities. 11 According tO B.H. Strtc:ter~ for example~
Q contains no pa,ssion material since 'at that period and in that non-literary
socitt)' of Palestinian peasantS only that was •uritten down which one would
~likely w forget', and no one was likely to forget the deoch and resurrcx:cion
of jesus~ which •Q pres-upposes as a matter of common knowledge'. Thus
Q was written soon aher jesus' death, in order (to supplement the living
tradition of a generation which had known Christ•.n Julius Wellhausen.
IS. A. Hamadc, The Sayi,.g.s of jesus: The &Wftd Souru of St. ,\1.4t.thew and Sl.
LMke (traos.. J.R. Wilkinson; New York: Putn:tm; l..ondon: Willi~tn$ & Norgare, 19081, pp.
1~71.
16. j.C. tlawkins., 'ProNbiJities as to che So·CaUed Doubl~ Tradition of Sc. Matthc:w
and St. luke'. in Sandsy (~d. ), StNdi~s in the Synoptic Ptoblmt, pp. 9$- 138 (129); ~e a!w
W.M. Ramsay, We tbe Plrysi.cion, mul Oth.r Studi4s iJ1 th~ History of Religi(m {London:
Hodclec. 1908 ~ pp. 84--89. For :a similar vM!w, see E.P. M~3dors-~}tsus rh~ M~ssianic Hn-old
ofS•/.,.ti<m (WUNT, 2172; Tut>;ng•m Molu Sieb<ck, 19951, p. 3H.
l?. P. Pokomt, Tb~ Cnwis of Cbristology (Edinburgh; T&T Clark, 1987). p. 90; A.
:P'olag, '1be lOcologiefl Cent.cr of tht ,Sayin8J Sour~·. in P. Stuhtm2cher (td.)~ Tlu Gospel
and tht Cosp~ls (Grand Rapids: Ecrdmans, 1991), pp • .91oaol0S { 102)~ M. H~ngd, 'Jnus
.s Mea&ianic Tef.c~ of Wit.dom and the &eginnings of CJ,risrology•, in Studits in E.4tl-y
Chmtok>gy (Edinbutgh, T&T Clark, 1995), pp. 73-117 {76).
18. See the di:K.uu,ion Ut Kfop1>tnborg, Fotmdtion, pp. 14-22.
19. !..H. St~t, ·~Lite-rary E.voJutioo of the Gospels\ in Sanday (ed,), Stud~;,
UN SyrwpJic Problnn. pp. 209-27 (215; emphasis ori&iru.lh also Strttttr, Four Cosp.els,
p. 292. ~he l)()l(d that Q\ l\Otcriology is~ on the pa.rou;r.i.a, oot the passion. Stt
also Kloppmborg. FOfflf4titm, p. 22..
The Death and Resurrection of Jesus in Q? 9
however, argued that Q··s purpose was tO supplement materials like Mark,
not ora] traditions or common knowledge of the death and resurteclion
ol jesus. fundamental to Wc:Uhauscn"s position was his view that Q was
dependenc on Mark, so th.at the former presuppostd the narrative material
of the latter, including the passion matcriaJ.lO
Besides Streeter and Wellhausen, other scholars who rook this view
include Martin Dibclius and T.W. ~1anson.·21 In Dibelius's view, the cthicaJ
crisis c.aused by the delay ol che Parousia resulted in t he compilation of Q, a
paraenetie (or balakbic) supplement to the basic kerygma." Q lacks passion
material bec.a use it was intended as such a s upplement; moreover, its non·
nanarivc: conr.enc.s excluded passion material necessarily.1l Manson thoughr
that the most likel)• motive for the compilation of Q was 'the pas-tora l care:
of the churches', groups comprised of 'people who are already Christians
and know t he story of the Cross by heart•.l-4 Though Manson took tt supplc-
mcnrnry view of Q, he also sensed that Q was at odds with other e.arly
Christian writings ft,)r which the passion kerygma wa~; central. He t hought
two streams of tradition evencually came together in Manhew and Luke: one
which held the passion and resurre<;tion o f Jesus to be central, and which
was expressed biographically (Mark); and one for which the sayings of an
authoritative teacher were fundamental (Q}.l$ In rhe view of Heinz E. TOdt,
Manson presents a problematic description of Q 'because from t his point
of view it cannot clearly be discerned how Q and the passion kerygma are
related to each other•.u
1"his view of Q as a supplementary sayings coUection that presupposed the
basic elements of kerygmatic Chrisd.aniry would be, at lea.sE until the work
of TOdt," the standard reason given for Q's lack o f passion material. TOdt
showed that the Q material both formally and conceptually was oriented not
tO the paS$iOn kerygma, as an ethical o r paraenetic suppJc::ment, but to the
ongoing proclamation of che kingdom announced by jesus. 21 Thus Q origi-
nated in a •sphert-' of t-arly Christianity whose central proclamation was not
jesus• death and rcsunecrion, but hJs teachings themselves:
20. J. Vlell.luw;en, EinieUwng in die erllm Jrei E~~a~tgel.ien (Bettin: Georg Reimer:, 2nd
(dn, 191 1). pp. 159-60; cited in Kloppenl:>org. FOt7nllt~, p. H .
21. H.£. TOO~ The Son ofM4n in the S)'"optl'c Tradition (trans. O.M. Sa non; NTI..;
London: SCM Press, 1965), pp. 238-46• see alro Kloppenb()rg, 'Euttr Faith', pp. 71- n.
22. M . Dibelius, from Tradition to G<npf.l.trans. B.L. Woolf; New York: Cbarte$
Scribner~ Soos. 1935), pp. 28, 238,245.
23. Dibelius.. FrOm Tradition. p. 244.
24. T.W. Manson, Tht Sayings of j~N.S: As RteorJtJ in tht Gospe-ls M<.mding to
$1. M~w and Sl. We A"anguJ wish ll'llrodMction and Commmtary (london: SCM,
1937), p. 16.
2$. Mo1oson. Saybtgs of j,IJ44, p. 11.
26. 1'0dt. Son of Man? p. 244. ~r Kloppcnborg's similar c riticism of Srrtttrr
(F<mndtiQn. p. 22).
27. 1-l.E. TOOt. On Mt1tscbensobn i7l tkr synoptisthen Obn~{entntt"' (Gii~rdoh!
G. Mohn, I~S~; 2nd edn, 1~63).
28. TOdt,So• of M-, p.l47.
10 Post-Morrem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Ther~ are rwo spheres of tndjrion, din in.guished both by rheir conoeprsa.nd by their
history. The c-catre of the one spbae is the passion kerygma; the c:cntrc of the othc7 i.s
tbe inrent;on to take up again tbt: tc:ach.ing of what jes:ut lud u ughL The Q m.aterial
bdoftg$ to thest>eond sphere.~
The rwo spheres differ not only in rhe conrem of proclamation, but more
fundamentally in christology. The first sphere's christology was, obviously,
oriented to the pass-ion and resurrection, but Q's is a Son of rnan cbristology
in which jesus' pre-Easter authority (and of course his own proclamation)
is validated through the post-Easter identification of Jesus and the Son of
man.)() This is what permitted the Q community to take up jesus' procla-
mation a.s their own.
However, for TOdt at least the two spheres appear to orbit the .same sun
{so ro speak), for in his view the passion and resurrection must have had
foundational significance for Q as well: 'Without recognizing this foundation
[viz., the events o f the passion and resurrection) a community would not have
been established at .all. 1l 1 In fact, precisely because it is the resu"eaion that
confirms Jesus as the coming Son of man and establishes the authority of
his sayings, 'as understood by thjs community, the passion and resurrection
were not what had to be preached but what had enabled them co preach'.12
The work of TOOt must be considered a gcound~brea.king achievemem for
the study of Q, for it established that the document - not to mention the
community and theology it represents - is of independent intereit for the
study of Christian origins." Nevertheless, in Toot's work Q remains within
the orbit of kerygmatic Chrisdanit)·.3 '
Along similar lines, Ernst Kasemann" and Odil H. Steck" viewed Q
as originating in a specifically mission.oQriented Sit% im Leben within a
community which knew and presumed the passion and resurrection tradi·
tions. 1' Steck saw Q's formally diverse contents as all oriented towards
mission: instruction and exhortation for tht missionar1es, paraenesis for
29. TOOt. Son of Man, p. 268.

30. TO<It, 5<>• o{ M<ln, PP- 2$2-$3.
3l. TOOt. So" of Ma,., p. 250.
32. Tl>dt, So11 ofMan, p. 2SOoi OI ~ simitar view) &cc U. Wilc:ken.s, 'jc:&ustiberlieferung
und C b.rinuskerygm.a: rw~i Wtgt: urchri.:stlicher Obt:.tt~ferungsgc:schichte', Th~olofio
Viatorum 10 (196S-66t, pp. 3 10.39; ET 'The Tradition-Hist ory of the Resurr4!Crion of
jesus', in C.F.D. Moule (c:d.). Tin Sitnifiu nc# of the R~su"utiOif (Ot Faith ht j#SM$ ChriJt
(SBT, 218; London: SCM, 1968). pp. Sl- 76 (72-73}. See Kloppe:nborg. •f.atur Faith', p.
13.
33.See J<Joppenbo,._ 'E>01or F•ith', p. 71.
34. Sec the criticisms of jacobson, First Co~J, pp. 28-JO.
35. E. Kbemattn, •oo the Subja.'t of Primitive Chdstiw AfNXalyptic:', in New
Tu""""'t ~k>ns o{Tod4y (tnns. WJ. Moorogue; NTl; London' SCM, 1969), pp.
108..J7 (119).
36. Steclc, /.1rad7 p. 288.
37. Soc: Kloppenborg. ' Easter Faith', pp. 73-74.
Tht Dtatb 4nd Resu"tction of jesuJ in Ql II
their converu, and woes aod threats for those wbo rejected the message."
However, john Kloppenbo<g bas shown thot the m:uerials which precede and
follow Q's mission instrUCtions •reflect a broader ec:clcsiaJ Sirt', and serve a
lcgitimatin1 function for the community as a whole- nOt just its missionary
activity. tJ E.fforu ro place Q within the locw of kerypark Chrisrianiry
have by and large not t-n able to aocount fully for t+oe document's shape
and theology, and appeals to the passion kerygma as foundational have no
clear basis in Q itself. For this reason, Kloppenhorg could apeak of earlier
scholanhip's 'subordination' o f Q to the korygma,00 and Asland Hultgren
could wam against 'the habit ol measuring all forms of proclamation in light
of the Pauline kerygma';u
2. "/"he Dtath of /tsuJ in Q
The fac:t that Q nowhere c.xplicidy mentions jesus' death, muc;:h less includes
anything related to the natt:Jtin passion traditions. raises the question of
whether knowledge of Jesus' death can be properly be inferred from Q."
Two d ifferent approaches have t-n attcmpred. The 6rsr cakes seriously Q
sayings which could imply knowledge ol Jtsus' deo1h on the pan of their
uaden11. The second approach is ro argue from Q's poltmical marerial, or
iu ma1erial about pcncculion, h.u:k to a knowledge of Jesus' dealh. Both
approat hca may be nrengtbcned if roupled with the • priori obscnation
that i< is highly unliktly thar rhe framers of Q wtre unswarc 1hat Jesus had
mer :a violent end.
The view 1hat Q contains sayings which imply a knowledge of jesus'
death, or which would have been read or heard with jesus' death in mind,
has long been held out as an alternative to the view that Q eonrained a
pa.ssion n11.rrative. Sometimes this approach bas been used ro reinforce an
Jl. S<cck. 11'..1, p. 281.

J9. Klopp<nboiJ, •£as= Fsith", p. 75.
40. Klopp<nbo<J, F..,_,;o., pp. 14-22. S.. al"' R.A. Ed:w•nh. A TIH<>loo o(Q:
f..l<bololop./'Toplw"'...J ~~'"""- (Pbila.!dpbia: Fon...., 1 n6~ p. 149.
<41. A. HuS~IJftl~ .,.,_ ltJ.u, of N~ Onilt"'"l11 (Muulc:apol_.. fonrrss, 19941,
p. JS. Y.c Hut..,.,;.,,,. dut a1mough Q d... oo< '(rdlt<ti CM> tht .,..,... o( ~·1
deltb and tftw-ftletion •Ions Pondi01: liocs', the c:ommwiliy owed 1t1 tte.ry vunm« to tbt
·~,.C"Ota chat bsd u.ken pla.ot - W minisa"y, denh aod rewmuion of )tius. foUowed b)'
dw: Splr-it\ (OCII.jn, and vltalicy &mOQ& ics tDtmben'.
<41. A po~itive tuUtt does noc imply eitbu a direct knowlcdcc oi the n.arrati.-c pauioo
tradition nor • dirte~. Wluenc:e on Q of lwypa.tie app~ebtl co jaul' de1th. See, for
ex.11mple, P.Hoffm~n.n, Stwdms V4r1Moklt~ dcr Lot~qwlk tNTAbh, 8; Miitu.t~r:
AKhcnd<><ff, J..! edn, 1982), pp. 187-90; D. Z.lltt, Ko......,uu "'' 1-og;mq..IJ. (SKICNT,
2t; SNrTJJI Nt Kltboli.tehts Bibdwerk., I984J, p. 97; Kloppcnbors. £ruvathtt Q, pp.
369-74.
12 Post-Mort•m VindiC<Jtion o( jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
understanding of Q as having an origin within kerygmacic Christianity. 41 Bur

mher authors have found isolated reminiscences of Jesus-' fate in Q without
toJking them as dependent upon the passion narratives or kerygma. The view
that the deuteronomistic perspective i.ncludes the re.jection and death of jesus
would fall under rhis description, and has b<en argued by David Seeley a nd
Arland Hulrgren.
Seeley rhoughr Q con rains a 'handful of passages (6.22-23; 7.31-35; 11.47-
51; 13.34-35; 14.27) which rrear rhe subjecrs of persecurion and death in a
way that could readily have b<en applied to Uesus'J demise', almough none
of the passages mention jesus cxplicitly. 44 Seeley argued t hat the Cross Saying
(Q 14.27} doe$ nor show any evidence o f the deuteronomistic perspective's
influence. On the contrary, in Seeley's opinion, Q 14.27 'does match Cynic·
Stoic views on the narure of a teacher•s death and its rtlatiOn$hip co di_s,iplcs'
deaths'.'' Seeley tried ro establish me compositional priority of Q 14.27
o ver the other references rhat display the deureronomist.ic perspective~-.
and suggested that the redactional addition Q 6.23c (the propher.' fares
as analogous w the fate of Jesus> disciple-s} adapted 'the characteristically
Greco-Roman mimetic patrern [e\·i·dent in 6.22ab, 23ab) ... lin order co]
accommodate a more: jewish topic: prophets•}" Thus Q 6.23c serves as a
'bridge• berween the mimetic and deureronomisric interpretations .., Seeley
tried tO sort all the deureronornisric references into a rrajecwry from Q
J4.27 (which displays no deuteronomisric in8uence) ro Q 13.34-35 (which
displays a .softening o f (he earlier and harsher pofem.ical perspective of Q
11.47-;1).
While der;~ils of Sceley•s study- in particular the pOSSibility of rracing an
incremental development in approaches to jesus· death within Q<4' - may be
q uesrioned~ he made a number of significant coouibutions. F'ttsr, he noted
mat Q 14.27 'deals specifically with Jesus and his followers' relation.hip to
him·~ and that 'could hardly be cited without calling to mind jesus' death'.
Seeley reasoned that although the Q people may seem w b< 'uninterested'
in Je.sus' death, •if is difticu)[ to believe that £hey were unaware that he had
13. RH. Stead, 'Does: the OriginaJ Collection of Logia ( 4 Q'") Contajn Prediction
of Our Lord's Rcsunc1:tioo?' Exposi"'r 812.2 11921). pp. 397-400. Along timilar llnes,
BU$$1))ann COn$idered it t~mhinkabk rhat Q could bct~y a knowledge of jesus' dtath (e.g.,
Q 14.27 aod Lk. 13.ll •.B I but bl!lve oo theological intcr~c in o.arrating if (BU$.Sn:!ann. Zur
R~denq~/1,, pp. J 16-17}.
D. Scdey, ' aks.singJ \l_nd 6ouod.1.rits: lnrerptt:blions of J~us• Duth in Q', in
,..,.,
Klopptnborg and Va~ (cds.), £orly ChristU'"ity, Q a~ }1$141, pp. 131-46 •131). See aiM)
D. Seeky, 'jesu11• Dtath in Q', NTS 38 {1992), pp. 222-J.4.
45. Seeley, 'JC$us' Dc:ath'. p. 234; also 'Bie&&ings and Soundarie$', pp. 132-34.
~. Seeley, •Biet$-ing,'l and Boundaries\ pp. U4-38.
-47.
Sttl<')'o 'BJes.s:inp and Bwodaries•, p. 138.
-48.
Scel<:y, '8lt"$$in:gll :and Bountbties•, pp. 138-.19.
Xe Tucl<.rtt, Q and the Hlsr<Jry, 220 n.. 39; T\lclcen., 'On the Str:ari6catioo of Q: A
49".
R~poo9e', in Klopp<-nborg and Vaage ( eds.), &rly Cltri#ia"ity. Q aM ju.w$, pp. 21~22
(217-13).
The Death and ReS~mection of jesus in Qf 13
suffered crucifilCion'.-'0 Second, regardless of whether the mimetic view of

disciple-ship ls more primitive than the deuteronomistic unde.rsranding, See.ley
showed rightly that in both models Jesus' death is explicitly linked with the
possible deaths of his follow~r$. Within the polemical use of the deuteron·
omistic perspe<:tivc in Q, rhe community faces the same threat of rejection
a od death - whether actually or potentiaily11 - as jesus and the. prophets
before him ac<UaJiy experienced. Although the Q community may have taken
up rhe deuteronomistic model because it made sense of their own situation
{or t('adicion ~, the fact rbar Q 14.27 connects their (expected or potential}
persecution with Jesus• dearh makes pouible a similar connection where the
deutcronomistic model appe.ars more strongly.
A similar approach wa.s taken by Hultgren. The two main rexcs he refers
to are the Cross Saying and the Jerusalem Lament (Q 13.34-35). Tbe theme
of Q 14.27 - t.>lc.ing one's cross and following Jesus in order to be a disciple
-(presupposes the. cross of Jesus and recalls cht carrying of Jesus· Ct0$S't
either by Jes us or by Simon of Cyrene (Mk 15.21 par.}.'' Moreove~ the
cross as- metaphor for the dangers associated with discipleship 'makes sense
only within a co ntext where the cross js a symbol of giving oneself over
sacri6dally, and therefore it most certainly echoes the passion•.sJ A reference
to Simon is highly unlikely, and while the Cross Saying would have been read
or heard in connection with jes us' death, a ·sacrifici~d' iru-erpretation seems
co infer too much from chis as a reference to death by crucifix.ion. 1"
H ultgren's discussion o f the Jerusalem Lamc::nt focuses o n it$ citation of
Ps. 1 J8.26: .since there is no evidence for a messianic reading of t he psalm
in early Judaism, •rhe first such usage musL have been in connection wirh the
account of jesus• en tty into jerusalem, where it is unmfstakeably messianic'.
Even though the verse i,s used in itS Qcontext as a prediction of the Parousia,
H ultgren thinks cthe Q saying echoes the acclamation of the crowds'
in Mk 11.9 etc.; moreovef, rhe association of Ps. 118.26 with the entry
imo Jerusalem in both Mark and John ' speaks in favor of its place in the
jerusalem entry traditi-o n from very early timcs'.'1 Thus, in Hultgren's view,
Q knows of the passion tradition concerning j esus• entry into jerusalem. It
wm be see-n below thar there are better grounds (han an allusion co the Entry
into Jerusalem for seeing a rcfer<nce to jesus' end in Q 13.34· 35, and it will
be argued that the saying's usc of Ps. 118.26 bas a different origin than in
the passion traditions.
Hultgr-e n aJso suggests, correcdy, that the Twelve Thrones saying (Q
22.28, 30} and other Son of man sayings (Q 12.40; 17.26-30} presuppose
.SO. Seelty, •jesus• (},uth'. p. 226 .

.S l, Oo I be q~ion wbether the Q community ~s actuaUy facl~ \'lolenl perg:·
cution, .st.: Tuckcu, Q aM th,. History, pp. 320-22.
$2. Hultgren., NormaJi~ CbrinUmity, p. 33 .
.S3. Hultgren, Norm4Jive ('.htistitmity, p. 33.
S<. Kloppeobo<&. Eu.""'lng Q, pp. 36!1-70.
SS. Hultgren, N01'1PU1tiw (.:.b,i.slilmiry, p. 3-4.
14 Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
a vindicated and exalted post-morrem jes-us; however, Hultgren thinks that

such a status can be granted tO jesus ·only on tb~ b~$isof his resurrettion'.56
ln partic-ular this -s tudy wiU rake issue with the final point; however, in
general Hultgren ;~.nd S~ley were correct to argue that there are a number of
texts in Q which betray a knowledge of jesus' death and which would have
evoked suc:h a memory - even if Q•s d.irec.t knowledge of specific traditions
that appear elsewhere in early Christian literature Qonot be demonsuarcd
with certainty.
The other way to handle the question of Q 's knowledge of the death of
jesus is to observe that Q contains rhetorical o r pOlemical strategies which
rt<pond to Jesus' death. A numbet of approaches have been taken by different
scbolars,n bur one arises from the deuteronomistic perspe<:tive on rejection
and suffering that Q espouses. Q 7.31· 35, 11.49·51, and 13.34-35 all deal
with the theme of the rtjeetion of Wisdom's emissaries and, rakeo rogerher,
these texts suggest a relationship between rhe rejection of john and jesus by
'this generation' (7.33· 35) and the violent fate suffered by the prophets, for
which 'this generation' is going to be held accountable (11.49·51; 13.34·
35a). This alone suggests that Q is responding rhetorically not just to petse·
cution in general, but a lso ro Jesus' death in particular, u$ing the deuteron·
omistic model. Funhermore, the Jerusalem Lament has in view a relationship
between those killed and stoned by jerusalem and Jesus himself." A. will be
J«n below, wme scholars take the jerusalem Lament as an utterance of a
supra-historical figure, such as Wisdom (Q 11.49). But even if Wisdom wer<
the speaker in 13.34-3Sa, at least ~tyGJ u~lv in verse JSb would signify a
shift to jesus as speaker. so that his own disappearance ("I tell you, you will
not $CC me ... ") is connected with the murder of prophets.D
This strategy becomes dearer when Q 7.3J ..J5 is read in conjunction with
11.49· 51. Wisdom is named in both passages. In the former saying, john is
rejected as demonic and jesus as a glutton and a drunk; yer Wisdom has been
vindicated in John and Jesus and those who like them are 'her children' (Q
7.35). As Christopher Tuckett puts it, 'jesus and john constitute part of the
series of Wisdom's messenger~ though rheir .spcdfically "'prophetic" .status is
not spelt out here.'fO In the latter 5aying, Wisdom sends the prophccs. Thus
both the prophets sent through the hittOry of God'$ re.lationship with his
56. Hulf8rm. NormaJiv~ Christianity. p. 34.

S7. for instance~ Alan Ki.rk srgucd jn an Wlpubli.shcd p;1pe.r that Q t 1 (including Q
13.34-35 u the climax of the section} ustS W rbetork" of $t:ttU$ degracbtio.:~ and elevation
lo. order co rnpo.ad to attempts to st.igmat.iu Jesus, to account for his death as murder, a.nd
to explain his scarus elevation as Soa of man.: Kirk.. 'Is Q Without h$sion?' (p.'lptt pteteo.tec:l
ar the S«iety of Bibl~J Liceracure AMual Meeting. November 1.998).
58. So~ for example, S. SchuJz, Q: o;~ Spnu.bqu~/1~ 4n EVdng~li.Jtn. (Zurlch:
ThcOiogisc:her Verlag. 1972), p. 354.
59. A fuller disc.::ussion of the function of ).iy(o) Ujiiv hc.rc and tliewbere in Q is givea
below in Cb.aptu 4.
60. Tuckett. Q 11nd tm. History, p.178.
The Duzth and R.e.urrection of]e.us in Q? IS
people (n~~Tas <ai o'*'"s, 11.49; Ab<ltQ Zechariah, 11.50) and John
and Jesus (7.33-34; Jesus as 'Son of man') are associated with Wisdom. Also to
be induded in this company a re the prophets and sem ones (ToVs trpo+~Tas
xai . .. ToUS CtmO'Ta~&vou$) .scmt to Jerusalem and killed and stoned by them
(Q 13.34). John and Jesus are theteforc understood as standing in continuity
with the prophetS who suffer rejection. The association o f jerusalem and irs
'house' with this violent rejection is also telling (Q 11.51; 13.34-JSa).
Soth Q 7.31-35 and 11 .49·-5 t also assign me reja::tlon o f these emissaries
of Wisdom to 'this generation•. The introduction to the parable of the
children in the marketp1ace begins with the rhetorical question, •To what
shall! compare this generation?' (7.3 1). Similarly in Q 11.51 it is said that
'th.is gencrarion' will b< called to account for the blood o( the prophets shed
from Ab<l to Z«hariah (d. also Q 1 '1.50). On this basis, then, it seems Q has
JC$us in mind as one of the rejected a nd murdered prophets fo r whose blood
'this generation' will have to give accoum. But who does Q mean by the
tag 'this generation'? Probably this reft r$ tO those hearing and rejecting Q's
proclamation., but they share common traits with those who through history
- from the beginning until the ministry o f Jesus, a nd on i.nto t he mission of
the Q community - have rejected the entreaties of God.'1 Thus, those who
ceject t he proclamation of the Q community now identify t hemselves by
this means with th< specific people who rejected John and Jesus and with
all the others who through history rejected Cod's emissaries; but this docs
not mean rhat one can •exttnd this to .. all Israel" simplicitn''.r.z This view of
rhe his-torical kins hip of those who reject God and the prophet$ is consistent
with the a pplication elsewhere of the deuceronomistic. paradigm (see, for
instanc-e, Acts 7.52).
3. lnferen... from the Deuteronomisti< Theology of Q
A few scholars have wondered wherber Q's silence on rhe death and resur·
reccion o f jesus is related tO its genre. Mi.g aku Sato, who argued for a
prophetic rather than a sapiential genre for Q, suggested accordingly that
'the narration of a pcophel's death does not belong to the macro-genre of the
prophetic book. The Source Q, which was deliberately a rranged in analogy
wirh the prophetic book, thus probably contained no passion narrative
btcawse it wt:S a prophetic book."'
But for Sato this means chat Q need not be understood as representing
'a discrete circle in primitive Christianity' ·" Taking a different pt:rsptctive
on Q's genre, K.l oppenborg noted that 'sapiential collections normally do
6l. Fot di$CU$SiOn, $CC Tuckett, Q and tiK Hittory, pp. 19~201 .
62. Tuck.:n, Q fllf4 th# History, p. 201.
63. Sato, Q u1fd Prophni.e. p. 383 (emphasis original; author's ttarl$ladonl.
6-4. Sato, Q Jmd Prophdi~, p. 38J.
not concern themselves with the death of a teacher...u Howevtr; Q is unlike

most other sapiential collections in its •biographkal case•, and that •Q's
natrarive world embraces the temporal range within which Jesus' death
could be placed•.u The answer, argued Kloppenborr~ is robe found nor in
the genre of Q but in its view of persecution, which is governed by deuteron·
omistic theology: •Q democratizes Jesus' death by means of deute.ronomistic
theology~ or, more acc;uratdy, Q bas not yet particularized that death by
emplorring ir and interpredng it apologetically with motifs drawn from the
psalms of lament.'"
More recently Alan Kirk argues, using cultural memory theory, that rhe
document Q arose as moral exhortation out of •a sy.nergistic connection that
ex_ists between commemorative and instructional acrividcs'.6• jesus' dearb
was commemorated using standard cu1tura1 memory images and scripts
(killed prophets, martyrs: Q 11.47-SI/, and 'rituali<ed activities commemo-
rating marryrs ... become opporruniries nor just for narrative recitations or
the m"'rryr's life and death, but also for instructional artifacts and activities
aimed at inculcating and securing commitment to emblematic norms'."
With this as Q's compositlonaJ impetus it becomes 'impossible ro sustain the
view that Q is representative of a distinct community ... with litt.Je interest
in Jesu.s' life and death'-"'
It is widely held that Q~s lack of explicir rderence to jesus' death resulre.d
from it$ interpretation of his death within the framewo rk of th~ deuteron·
omistic theme of the rejection of prophets.' 1 james Robinson, for instance,
following Steck concerning the coincidence of wisdom and deuteronomistic:
traditions in Q 11.49-SI and 13.34-35,11 related Q 13.35 to the death of
Jesus . .,-he theme that Wisdom is so regul~rly rejected on earth she finally
rerums to he.aven' ,1.'1 under the influence of the deureronomis-ric view of
6$. Kloppenborg. 'Wter Fajth', p. 82.

66. Kfoppcnborg,. ' F..ast~er fajth', p. 82.
67. Kloppenborg. 'Euter Faith', p. 82.
68. Kirk, 'The Memory of Violeoce and the Death of Jesus in Q', i.n ~ Kirk and T.
Tharchet (eds.), M~ Tradition, tnuJ Tt-:ct: Uses of tM PaSI in &tly Cbristia11ity (Seme,ia
Studies, $2.; Adaara: SociC'ry of BibJicsJ Literature, 2005), pp. 191- 206 (20U.
69. Kirk, •Memory of Violence'. p. 201.
70. Kirk, 'Memory of Viok:oce', p. 203.
71. For itlstaoce, Steck, lna.l, pp. 288- 89; Hoffmann, Stwdi<n, pp. 170- 71; S<bul..
Sprucbquefk, p. 343; A.D. jacobson, 'The Literary Unicy of Q',JBL 101 (1982), pp. 36.5--
89 !380); RJ. Mille• 'The Rejtctioo of <he Prophet$ in Q',JBL 107 (1988), pp. 22S-4{): D.
Luhrmann, ' The G<»pcl of Mark aod chc Sayings Colle<tion Q',/BL 108 (1989), pp. 51- 71
{64); J. Vcrbc:ydtn, •lbc: KiJJing of W Prophrcs in Q and W Oeuteronomis:tic Traditioru
Some Re&xiort~' (unp,ablithed paper pn:scnted at th( Society of Bibfia~l Likrarure AnnuaJ
l\.ie(tiog, Novem~z 2002). For a counter-exampl.e, !Itt Meadors, M~ssianie Hn4ti.J, pp.
296-307.
72.. Stt<:k, lmul, pp. 1~27, 232. Sccdc. thought rbar the convergence occutred in
the pre·Cbriscian Vorlage of ~~ uyil)(;$0 Tuckett, oo che ()c:h<r hatld. thinks that Q U
responsible for thls 'new combination' (Q and Ute History, p. 170).
73. Set 1 En. 42.1 ·2.
The Death and Resuruaicm of Jesus in Q? 17
history appropriated withio Q's •judgmental apocalyptic context', becomes

the view that Jesus' death was 'only the culminating inStance of the rejection
of God's spokesmen by lsrael' - only thar, and nor a salvi6c event.14
Where- deureronomisric rreatments begin to differ from one another,
however, is in the extent to which the death of Jesus is understood as the
(implied) 'culminati1lg instance'. For Kloppenborg, the view of persecution
in Q is corporate, so that •jesus' fa.tc evidently was nor yet an issue which
required special comment. ' 71 No explicit 'special oommenr' in Q s ignifies
that Jesus' rejection is decisi\'t, but s uch an infe rence is supportable. Paul
Hoffmann, for example.• thought that in and of itself the deuteronomistic
approach to jesus' death means that for Q "the fate of Jesus stands rather in
continuity with the fate of all of Wisdom's messengers .... Hence Q speaks
of his r¢jcc:tion only in connection with the fat~ of all the others.' 7' How~Yer,
unde.r the influence of the confession of jesus as 'Son of man', ' Q quarifics the
'"messenger" jesus in a unique and incomparable way, in ch:~r it identifies him
with the Son of man.m In fact, accord ing tO Hoffmann, when the rejected
one is identified with the Coming One (Q 13.3Sb), 'the traditional deutcr-
onomi.sric framework is blown apart under the influence. of the expectation
of the return of Jesus ... who fo < [the redaction of Q] is the decisive repre-
sentative of God's e.nd~·rime action',' *
A problem arises, however. as tO how Q connecls jesus• rejection with
tbe ongoing mission of the Q-community: Tuc.keu adds the "proviso' that
Q re-presents the message of jesus to 'this generar:ion· as a last opportunit)'
for repentance.'• The implication is rhat Jt$us' rejection, though decisive,
74. j .M. Robin~. "jesus ~s Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tnu.lirio.o and the Gospek',
in R.L. WiJkcn led.), Aspec.ts of Wisdom in }ud4ism and £4rly Cbris:im~ity (South Btnd,
TN: Univtrsity of Notre Dame Pta.s. 1975), pp. 1- 16 (12-13); sec also jacobson.. 'Literary
Unity', p. 386. :and First GMpel, p. 74; Schuh., Spruchqt.Uile, p. 354; H. von Lips,
Weishe.itlic:he Troditiont-n im N~uen Tt.stam~m ('WMAr-tt', 64; Mu.nlch: Neu.kirc.hentt,
1990), p. 178.
15. KJoppenborg, 'Eaner F:a.ith', p. 81. Cf. Kloppe.obors, Ex~vating Q, p. 373: 'it
scnns plausible that Q undcrstan& jesus:' death as an ln.uance of che '"typical•- perhaps
dim:~ctic. - prophetic death'.
76. Hoffma('tn, StudiCI'I~ p. 188 (emphasis original; ·author's translation).
77. Hoffm.ann. Studim, p. 189. 5« a.l110 P. Hoffma-nn, •jetU$vctkUndigung in dtr
Logie:nqutlle', io W. Pesch (td.), }eSUI in dar fva'!telitm (SBS, 45; Sturtgan: Katholi.scho
Sibelwcrk, 1970), pp. S0-70 (65).
78. P. Hoffnurm, 'QR und der Mco.schC"::.rohn: F.ine vorl3u6g.e Skine', in C .M.
Tucker~ et :11. (eds.}, The Fot'r Go~ J 9.92 {Fe&C$Cbriit Frans Neirynclt; B.ETI.. 100; 3
vols.; Leuven: lcuvcn Univer:sity Press and Pttn:n, 1992j, pp. 421-S6 • •'J'he RedJtc.tion
of Q and the Son of Man: A Preliminary Sketch', in R.A, Piper (ed.), Tbe Gospel 8ehi,J
th~ Gosptls. CMnent Sh4diu o" Q fN<rrTSup, ?!i; Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, 199SJ, pp.
159- 98 (192). See also von l ips, Weis~itlidte Traditionm, p. 278; E. Sevenich· &x, fw<1t!ls
Konfrontt~tion mit dnt ldtJn. Botnt chr WffliHiL: Form, Mmktimt unJ lnlcr~
Mr Wmh1-itu~ in der Logienquelk (Miinster;~ner tbtologische Abhandlungm, 21;
Abenbtt~: Otos, 1.993), p. 362; Tuckett, Q and tht HiJtory, p. 221.
79. Tuc;kete, Q•nd the H,.story.• p. 221 n. • 1.
18 Post-Mor1em Vindkalion of jesus in the Sayings Gos(MI Q
still stands ln the dcuteronomis-tk vi~w within a continuum of rejection

that .stretches from the beginning of the sending of prophetS to Q's ongoing
prophetic mioisuy.' 0 Thus even if Q sees jesus' death as decisi\•e, the deuter~
onomistic perspective- especially given Q sees its- own members as standing
in that continuum - demands that this point not be pressed roo far.
Several scholars think Q's application of a deuteronomistic: pe:npcc:tive
to the particular case of Jesus is an COirly theological interpretation of Jesus'
death, but one which is not salvific or expiarory.11 J<loppenborg has a rgued
that •ar ptteisdy the points at which Q might have borrowed motifs from
a putative pre-Markan passion account ... Q does not'.12 If a kerygmaric
inrerprttation of Jesus' death was a$$umed by the framers of Q, some trace
of it can be expected to remain in Q. The. question then remains how these
different understandings of jesus' death were related, if at all. Hoffmann
suggested that the kerygmatic view developed quickly from the deuteron-
omistic view,u while KJoppenbo.rg bas recently propoied simpl}• that Q~s
approach to Jesus' death is early, 'probably earlier than Marlc•s privadz.ing
n~rrative and perhaps at least u early as Paul's view' ... Given the limit$ of
the evidence, however, it is prudent not to suppose that the deureronomistic
view is either chronologir:aJJy or devc:lopmentally prior to the kerygmatic
view. Some scholars have concluded that the Q community was (more or
Jess) isolated from other developments in earliest Christianity;85 but all this
raises a more fundamental qu«rion.
4. The Silence of Q
Q, then, not only betrays a knowledge of the death of jesu~ but also shows
evidence of artempts to interpret it theologically or tO handle it rhetorically,
despite its failure to mention it directly. As seen, many scholars think Q
consider-s the death of jesus as the climactic o r paradigmatic instance of the
rejection of the prophets; however, Q does not give evidence of an approach
to jesus' death which as.sociatt$ it with salvation. How is the silence of Q
to be evaluated? Did Q know, but disagree with, kerygma tic approaches tO
110. Set espcciaUy Li.ihnnann, "Mark and Q', p. 64.

81. Hoffmann. 'Jcsusw:rkiindigung-', pp. 64 ...65; Studie", pp. 188-89; Schulz.
Spntdtqwtle. p. 351; Jacobs.on, Firu Go.spd. p. 260: Tuckett, Q tPid tht HittOI')'. pp.
22~21 ('a ~l.uivclr • tow" view'); Kloppenborg, Exeavati1fg Q. p. 37-4.
81. Xfoppcoborg, 'EaJtet Faith", pp. 77- 81 (31). KtoppcnbcM's has in mind 'tht
mofi& of God-'s ,.indication ofje.\1$ as the right~ •uffcrer, the cttablifhJnc:n.t o( a tonple
• not built with h2nds'"' and the apologcric use of Psalms 2l, •U , 69 and 109', S« aJso
Kloppenborg, Ezawati"g Q. pp. 373-7-4.
83. Hoffmann. S"'dim, pp. 189-90.
34. Kloppenboti. &""""mt Q, p. 374; cl. Hu=do, Lord,,..,. ChM, pp. 229-31.
8S. jacobson, Fi•# Gosp.l, p. 260; B.L. Mack, Th• Lost Gotp<i; Tho Book ofQ <md
Chriltid" Orig.U.S tSan Francisco: HarperC'.olli.ns., 1993). pp. 4-$; cf. Hurudo, Lord }tSNS
Christ. pp. 2.27, 2.31, 2-41 Q. 63.
The Death and Resurrection of ]eSt<s in Ql 19
jesus' death? Or did Q's silenet> result from ignorance of, or eve.n isolation
from. s-uch approaches? These are difficult but important qu-estions, ones-
which will come up again in relation to Q and tradidons about the res-ur~
re<;tion of Jesus.
Caution ls ne.ces:sary here. As m.any have pointed out, Q should not
be ~;onsidercd an exhaustive summary of all that the community uspon·
sible for it btHeved about Jesus.86 Generic and occasional constraints on
the document must be taken st.riously, as they are, or should ~' with the
letters of Paul. for instance. Thus, even if it is appropriate to judge that Q
functioned as a 'gospel', that is., as the •guiding: theological statement• of
a particular community," this does not mean l'har the document exhausu
all the theological possibilitie-s for that community.n The cvldenc~ there
is - including the silence of Q - has, of course, led differe nt scholars to
different conclusions. Hultgren,. who con-sidered cardully the problem of Q's
silence., thought t he evidence justihed placing Q within emerging 'norm3tivc
Chrisrianiry'.'' Bur, as seen above, this conclusion involves raking Q 14.27
as implying a •sacrificial' death, and Q 13.35 as referencing the entry
into Jerusalem, and various Q logia about jesus the returning or exalted
•Son of man' as requiring a belief in the resurrection of Jesus.M Hultgren..
tending to give a 'kerygm<ttic' interpretation t O wh<tt is in Q, arrived at this
conclusion.
Kloppenborg, on the other hand, concluded the oppooite, giving a 'non·
kerygmatic' interpretacion to what is not in Q. In his view, because Q
•consistently fails' to make use of certain traditions and motifs associated
with the passion narratives, there is no reason to suppose that Q knew such
ttaditions and $tudjously avoided tbem.' 1 In his words, 'When one asks, is
there any reason co suppose that Q knows a pre~Markan passion account or
a salvific intc_rpretation of jesus' death, the an$wer must be, no.''~ These rwo
questions, however, could better be taken separately.
86. Stt for instance G.N. Suntan, ·On tbr Chr-istology of Q', in 8. Lindars and
S.S. SmaJiey lcds.), Cbrist and Sp;rit in tb~ N#W Tutf.Jment (fcstscb.rift C.f.D. Mouk;
Cambri~g" Camb<i<Ji< Univemty Preos, 1!173), pp. 27-42 (~1-42); Saro, Q omd P.-opba;.,
p. 383; Hultgren, Nomt~~~M Chri5tUmity, p. 37; Kloppenborg, Exawating Q. pp. 176,
371; Hurtado, Lord /~sus CbriJt, pp. 232- J3.
87. 1'111: languagt: is that of 'Kiop~nborg, 'Easter Faith', p. 72.
88. Kloppenbocg, 'literary Convention. Self·Evideutt. and the Social History oft~
Q P~pk', in Kloppenborg 2nd Vu~ (tds.), &rly CbrisJUinity, Q <Jnd j~5us, pp. 77-102
(79).
89. Hultgren, NormtJtivt c.hri5-:ianity, pp. 37--41.
9'0. Hultgren, N0rm41-iv~ Chris-Hanlty, pp. 33-JS, 39.
9 1. Klo-ppenborg, E.x-cawri"g Q, p. 374; Kloppe-nburg, ' faster fahb*. pp. 76-82; S«
also Hu.nado, Lord J~ms Christ, pp. 239--44.
,2, Kl.oppenborg, bGIW<Jting Q, pp. 373-74. Kloppenborg advocates allowing for
Q's view of Jesus' dealh to be stucHed ~Jongside. for i rut~noe. the Pat.di.ne appco11eb, while
avoiding the problt"IXI$ pr~nted by theories r~uiri.ng a Q commurury that maiota.iord
o'trr a eocuideab&e length of ti.mt' 2 ceruin degrtt of 'i:solation'lrom other dcvdopments
in urly Chri,rianity 4374).
20 Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in tile Sa)·ings Gospel Q
Kloppcnborg rightly observes that Q fails to individualize its view of

persecution in relation to jesus· end 3nd tO narrate rhat end, or predict it
explicitly. as the Markan passion predictions do. This is so even though the
elements of the wisdom tale are all present {but not 'emplotted'). a nd despire
Q•5" tra jectory towards biography (and away from instructional lircrature).'3
He also o bserves that Q does not make use of the psalms of lament," despite
rhe ample. evidence in Q of an interest ln rcinscribing scriptural traditions."
H ere Kloppcnborg•s c:.ondusion is appropriate, that this s uggC$l$ Q had no
knowledge o f tbc narrative passion tradition. However, these particular
motifs o f the gospel passion narratives a re not identical with, nor the onJy
vehicle for. a salvific interpretacion of Jesus' death." This idea, as has been
well documented, may be found in the traditions known co and used by
Paul.~' It is nor o ut of the question that the cradents of Q knew of such an
approach but found themselves a t odds with it."'This seems a more cautious
conclusion than co say Q was ignorant of salvific understandings of J esus'
death. An analogy might help illustrate why.
T he a uthor of Luke..Acts, as some have observed, seems hc~tant tO take up
the view that j esus died 'for us' or 'for sins'." This observation is reached by
considering nol only what Luke contains - including language and material
emphasizing that JC$US dies as an innocent martyr 100 - but also what Luke
does not contain (i.e.~ no reference to jesus' death in rhese terms}. 101 Of
93. Kloppenborg, 'Easu:r F3ith', pp. n-80, 82; Bx~awting Q, pp. 371-73.
94. Kloppenborg, 'Easter F-aith', pp. 80-81; E.xc.avating Q, p. 373.
95. D.C. Alli1100, T~ lntmextwd }~JUJ: Scriptur~ in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Tritlity Pt-e$$
lntcmariooal, 2000).
.96. The pat;stQn n:mativcs themselves are n()t exacdy repltte with •salvific• overronei.
5« J.S. Gtten, T~ D~th ofJ~sus~ Tradltion p,rJ lntt:rpreta.tior~ in the P#SSion NPrratillt
fWUNT, 2133; TUbi"3"n' Moh• s;ebed<, 1933), pp. 32o-23.
97. £.g., Rom. 4.24--25; 1 Cor. lS.3. Sec R.N. Loro..genecke:; New Wine into Fresh
Wineskins~ Contmual.izi1tg Jhe E#rly Cbristion Conft$$'101«$ (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson:,
1999), pp. 16, 18, 41-42.; Hurutdo, lArd J~nt$ ChriJt, pp. 128- 29, 170-7 1.
98. Hurtado al.lows for this possibility but add! 'wetr: tb.i! the e&$C", we would apt<:t
~me indication ol differenttt ovu rhe m;atter with other Ch.d$1iOJn. <:irelcs' (J..ord }UUJ
Christ, p. 2-42), raising in a similar context the Cosp$1 o{ThOWJs, 'whicb clearly shows dut
i cs!r;~men knew and rejected other vmiont or Cbris.tian tc:achios• (p. 230). On tbe other
band, are there signs o f mar.k¢d d isagrccmmt in Luke-Acts with the idea of Jesu~ dying
•for sins'? In.stead, the iSS'ue it; deflected through th.e deployment o( other inttrpret~tivt
strategies.
99. A$ Hulcsren poinu out, the Fourth Go$pel lll130 l~ck• $UCb J view (N()mf.:tt~
CMisrianity, pp. 38-39).
100. Set G.E. Stirling, 'Mor-1 pbi/0$()/1bi: The Dr.31h of ~11 in Luke', HTR 94 12001•~
pp. 383-402 (39l-400) ~od tbt: literature cit<"d then:i.n.
101. The: only ea.ndid:atc$ for 11ulogical Contrown~ on
the Text of tM Nnu Tesrammt (New York; Ox-ford: Oxford Univeniry Pres:s, 1993), pp.
199...203; d . F.G. Carpinelli. ••[>o Thit; <1$ My Memorlal'" (Luke 22:191: l~n Soteriology
of Atonement', CBQ 61 (1999), pp. 74--9 L
The D1!4lh and Resurrec.tion of]e5us in Q? 21
course, scholars are on surer grou.nd with Luke than with Q because the
author's source material is available for comparison (e.g., Mk 10.45 has been
omitted from the convcnation about greatness, Lk. 22.24-30). This has not
prevenred scholars from disagreeing about the significance of both what luke
does contain and what it does not. At least one may conclude modestly that
<he author of Luke preferred certain mod.. of interpreting (and pretenring)
jesus' death over others, and made literacy dcdsions ro that end.
We should proceed similarly with Q . What is- in Q must be taken more
ser-iously than what is not in Q, which muSt not be presumed. On the other
hand, Q's silence on certain matters or views can be taken seriously il Q does
show evidence of alternative or opposing views. More concretely for the
present discussion, as seen thus far, Q does betray a knowledge of the death
o f jesus., and its main strategy for interpreting it, the deuteronomistic model
of the rejection of prophets, is mainly corporate, although j esus? rejection
is taken a,s climactic - and there is literary evidence for this. Q does not, on
the other hand, give any indication that Jesus' death was understood by its
t:radcnts as redemptive or sacrificial, nor that they had any imerest in the
major themes employed in the narrative passion tradition - for this there is
no literary evidence.10l However., Paul'$ leners show that s 'kerygmatic' view
of jesus' death 'for our sins' predates the fuJJy developed narrative passion
tradition and its interesu in, for example, the psalms of lament. Is it possible,
or even necessary, to maintain thar the deuteronomistic model i$ ear-ly (i.e., as
early as Pau)'s) and was developed in a setting in which the kerygma de view
was not known? It seems just as likely that the uadent.o; of Q developed or
adopted the dcuteronomist:ic model in prefe-rence over the kerygmatic view.
Thus, it may be inferred that those behind Q wett not unaware of othe-r
developments in early Christianity and yet shaped their document along the
Jines of their own preferred christology and socerio1ogy.
Q and the Resuffect.ion of je.sus

If Q knows of jesus' death, and h•s offered oome kind of interpretation of
il, even implicicly, does Q contajn a corcC1ponding view of his vindication?
In particular, a problem arises in view of Jesus' death because Q also shows
evidence ol ~ bclitf in Jesus M the Coming One or the Son of man, i.~., as an
exalted or escharologicalngure (Q 3.!6b-17; 7.18-19, 22-23; 12.8-9, 39-40;
13.35; 17.23-24,26-27, 30; 22.28, 30), and as one who speak• on behalf of
WISdom (Q !0.21-22; 11.49·5 I; 13.34-35). Regardless of Q's compositional
history, one 1till hots to make sense of how in the •finished' document these
102. Hurudo is correct th2t tbe 'choice' of the compoietS of Q to treat the death of
Jesus u they did 'batdly iodjcaces an ignotanoe of, ot lac:k of inte~c in, other c.ons.tru.al$
ol Jc$US' ~atb' !Lord }~lUI Chr•'t t, p. 242), but it must be ~mplu.$ited tNt ~n inu~reM: in
otber corutrua\s of jestH' death cannot be proven.
materials are to be read together with one a.nother. How can Q•s exalted view
of Jesus be accounted for, especially in view of its knowledge of his death by
crucifixion? As just discussed, urc must be cxe_rd-scd t.h at our inference~ nor
exceed the warranrs of the literary evidence Q represents.
1. Resu"ection in Q
It should first of all be noted that Q rnakes no explicit reference to the resur-
rection of jesus. In a way, this is nor surprising: if Q did not contain a passion
narrative, why should it mention jesus' rC$urrecrioo? But the gospels for
whic:h resurrection theology is of paramount imponance a]so make reference
to Jesus' resurrection during their accounts of his ministry. 103 Ncvenhdess,
resurrection per se is nol outside the scope of Q, for a general resurrection is
mentioned in Q 11.31-32 as the forum of the final judgment: the Queen of
the South will be raised (ty<p8,\onaolat the judgment in order to eondemn
'this generation', and likewise the people of Nineveh wiU also arise (avaon\
oovTao).104 Q 13.28-30 speaks of many eoming from east and west and
reclining at table with the pattwchs, and this might, given Q 11.31-32,
imply a belief in the «ehatological resurrection, but this is less dear. Since
the sayings use both techniea.l terms (f:ytlpw, O:vianuu), resurrection -as
opposed to standing in accusation - is in view. 101 The raising of the dtad as a
charocterisri< of Jesus' ministry (Q 7.22} also uses the standard verb iy<opw,
bur this should not be taken as a reference to the escharologlcal resurrection,
as the other references clearly should. Even though the c5Chatological resur-
rection forms part of the belief suuctwe evidenced by Q. ]uu.s' resurrection
as an individualixed means of post-mortem vindication and cxaJtation docs
nor figure in Q at all, cenainly nor explicitly.106 So again the question is
raised: how should the silen<e of Q be evaluated?
The foregoing discussion on the death of Jesus in Q clArified the cfif6culties
involved in claiming either that Qcould not have known about certain inter-
pretations of Jesus' death or that such were presupposed (but not mentioned
or appealed to) by its tradems. The same concerns relate to [he question of
103. See Mk 8.31; 9.31• 10.34 pu~; Mk 9.9 pat. Mt. 17.9; Mt. 12.40.
104. N.T. Wright tries to make a case for otbr:r, mort' clJiptica.l nJc«oces to ' resu.r•
rection' in Q, including Q 3.8; 9.60; 12.28, 33; 17.33; 22.30 (the ~atr cwo are the n\0$1
likely c:aodidarcs). N.T. Wright. 'Resurrection in Q?-. in D.C. Horrell :md C.M. Tuckett
((:ds. ), Chrisrology. Controwny tmd Community: New Te-stament Essays (Festsc-hrih O.R.
C.atdtpole; NovTSup, 99; Le:iden: Brill, 2000), pp. 8S- 9? (89-93).
lOS. See Jt, Uro. 'Ap<KaJypc-jc; Symbolism and Social ldmriry in Q'. in R. Uro {ed.),
Symbols 4nd Str11ta: E..ssoys on rhe Sayings Gospel Q (Publications of the Finnish Ext~tial
Society, 65; Helsinki: firtn.i•h Extgctic.tl Sockty; GC!Ittingm: Vandenhoec:.k &: Ruprcdtt,
1996), pp. 67- 118 ~ 92); JCJoppt-nbors, Exe.r~wting Q. p. 378.
106. Wright dlioh a bel~ in Jnus' resu.rr~oo is bthind tbc •Sign of Jonah' saying
(Q 11.29-30}. tspecially because resuttection is menrioru:d in Q 11.31·32 ('Res-u.rf'tCtion
in Q?', p. 94).
2J
the resurrection of jesus in Q. On the one band, as noted above, it is mistaken

w insist char Q could have functioned as an exhaustive compendium of the
community's theological views. But if, on the other band, the resurrection of
jesus is nOt mentioned or appealed to where it might have been useful tO Q,
then it is equally problematic to suppose that resurrection is a theological
presupposition lurking behind orh<r ospects of Q. Either approach rakes us
beyond the limits of the literary evidence. Rather, the queslion should more
properly be how Q deals with issues which elsewhere in early Christianity
are managed with reference co Je$uS' resurrection. But where and how could
resurrection have played a role in Q?
Elsewhere i.n early Christian literature, jesus' resurrec.tion has manifold
funetions. In Luke-Acts, for instance, the resurrection performs primarily a
vindicating function in relation to the death of Jesus either as a wrongful
death of a.n innocent (Acts 2.23-24 ), or •• the death of one reje<:ted by those
tO whom he was sent (Acts 4.10.11). The deuteronomistic view in Q provides
a sufficient lens through which to interpret jesus' wrongful death; in fact,
more prominent in Q i5 not the vindication of rejecud prophets, whost-
starus is in a way guaranteed by their faithfulness under persecution, but
the vindication of the one who sent them (hence Q 7.35). 107 Kloppenborg
ba.s suggested that if Q's approach to persecution is corporate, 'it seems:
incongruous to balance this with a posr· mortem exalcarjon of an individual',
that is, with jes:us' res:urrectioo. 108 If however it c:an be maintained that Q
sees jesus' violent fate as a prophet as a decisive or culminating insrance of
the phe-nomenon, it may bt-. that a s-pecial vindication would be necess-ary,
especially given that Jesus is also viewed by Q as the heavenly and/or cscha·
tologic:al Son of mao.
The resurrecdon also functions in Luke--Am as a means of validating
Jesus· pre-Easter teachings: the rjsc:n jesus draws attention to his pl'cvious
instruction (Lk. 24.44}, which is clarified for his followers because they au
now equipped with minds open to understand the Scriptures (24.45). The
highlighted concenr is primarily God's plan for the death and resurrection of
the Messiah (24.46; also 24.6-7, 25-27), but by extension all the teaching
of jCSU$ is thereby validated for the reader of luke.'"' That the risen Jesus
is recognized in the breaking of the bread (24.30-31) means his pre-Easter
interpretacion of his death, and the COJltinuing eucharistic practice of his
follower$, afc: also valjdated (22.19-20). It may be eltpected, given that the
composers of Q knew about the death of jesus and offered interpretative
suategies for dealing with it, that s-imilar concerns, namely, r.he valida£ion
of jesus-' teachings and the vindi~rion of his death, were also real for them.
H owever, if Q does not make explicit recourse to tesurrc:etion in service of
these issues, ~Jnd if there is not substantial warrant for seeing it as implied or
107. So Kloppmborg. 'But« Faith', p. 81.

108. Kloppenboi'1L. 'FA.s:ter Fa.irh', p. 34.
109. Thl3 is even c:lu~r in Mt. 28.18-20.
24 Post-Mortnn Vindkation of'"'" in tht Sdyings Gospel Q
presumed, then in its absence some other mode of vindication or validation

must be sought.
2. Q, 'Easter', and J-.us the C<>ming Sen of Man
Was there a formative or originating experience of Jes-us as exalted, formu~

tared or con<:eptualir.cd in terms of 'resurrC':tion' - an e"pericnce we might
call 'Easter' - at the root of the christology of Q? Several scholars have
argued that Q in one way or another presumes 'Easter'. As seen above,
TOdt was the first co insist that Q originated in a non-ke,ryg.matic 'sphere'
of Christianity, even though he supposed that the death and resurrection of
Je$uS were of fundamental significance co the community. He argued that
the communicy could rake up j esus' proclamation as rheir own since the
re-surreccion had confirmed jesus' aurho_riry. 110 The resurrection enabled
lhe renewal of the 'fellowship• which was characteristic of jesus' e:uthly
relationship with his followers, and which wouJd one day be confirmed in full
by the Son of man at the Parousia. For TOOt. then, the resurrection is both
the means whereby the communiry ldentified Jesus with the coming Son of
man and 'the affirmation of his exousia'. u• Thus the resurrection allows the
communiry ro re· prodaim Jesus' message, since it is confirmed as the procla·
marion of the Son of man. Toot also thought the Q community originated
the tradition which identified Jes-us with the coming Son of man. 112
This view relies on not only a prcsumpr.ion of resurrection faitht113 but also
a certain interpretation of it - based upon the Johannine and Lukan resu r-
rection appearances" •- as 'restored fellowship' . In addition, TOdt depends
upon Acrs 2.22·24 for che schema in which jesus• •aurhoriz.ation' is rejecud
by the authorities- most decisively in bls execution- and yc::t is confirmed
by God through the resurrection. 11 s Again, while Q's deuteronomisdc
pctspc:ctive demonstrates a knowledge of jesus' rejecdon and death, it is to
go beyond the evidence to suggest that Q has in mind the same schema as
evident in Acts, particularly since the resurrection is not explicitly mentioned
ln Q. Nevertheless) according to Kloppenborg, TOOt's view that jesus' sayings
are. legitimated through his resurrection· based exaltation as Son of man has
110. TOdc, Son of Man, pp. 2S()...5.l; $C!e KloppcobOl&, 'E.utcr Faith•, pp. 83-84.
Ill. TOOt, Son of M4~ p. 253.
112. TISch, Son of Mlrn. p. 231.
J 13. TOOt, Son of Man. p. 231: 'Thank& to t he impetu!l giveo by the: .Easter event, the
earlit-st: beginnings of Christology (dut is,. the idcnti.fiation of jesus wlth the coming Son
of man} rhus &prang up from $0teriology lt~ t iJ. the promise of the S01J of ~ao"$ hen~ly
ac.knowkdgmcnt of those faithful to Jesus.• Q 12.8-9).'
114. TOdt., Son of M4n, pp. 2.5~51; following K. Reng.~rorf. Die Au{e.r1ulnmg J~~U:
Form, Art vnd Sinn Jn ttrchri.stl~hm Oturbotulu•(1 {Witttn•Ruhr: Luther, 1952), p..
5.1.
US. TOdt, Son of l&m, pp. 2.11-52.
Tbe DMth and Rburrectio• of J-• tn Qt 2S
been 'the mort widely repeated' view, and it found acceptance in the work
of Norman Perrin, Ric.hard Edwards, 2nd Eugene Boring.'W
Perrin's worlc in particular ck..suv« anc~ntion sin« it presumes a different
exegcrical tcbema than the one suggested by Todt. Perrin argued that 'the
e.pca•tion or the coming of ]<SUS as apocalyptic Son or man is a product of
(tlutlexegctical proceu' which first interpreted the r.. urteetion or jcous in
light of Psalm 110, and then interpreted the rcsultin.g ~,.tar-Christology' in
light of Z..:h. 12.10 and Dan. 7. 13-1 4. 1" Boring rook rhe same view.' " The
exeserical proceos Perrin argued for 6nds supporr in Mk 1~.62 but bas left
no tnce whatsoever in Q, 11 ' which r:;~n n ot depend on Mork for t his.
Hoffmann a.rgucd that Son of man chricsrology Is a dominam feature o{
the Q ITUlltrilll. 110 Although he did not rely on the resurrection exegesis o(
Ps. 11 0 and Dan. 7.13-14 supposed by Ptrrin, he undenaood Q's confession
or Jesus •• the Son of man •• o riginating in t he 'apol:alypsis of the Son' (Q
10:21..22), which in Hoffmann's view is essentJally an '&.s-eer' experience
-an ex-perience or the exalted (hence risen l post-moru~:,m Jesus. m Hoffmann
noced that Q doe'S not contain any Easter stories, nor 1ny rderence to me
kind of Easrer k<rygma prC$t<Ved in 1 Cor. 15.3-S. But 01her Strums of
tradition in early Chrinia.nicy connected rhe Easter e:a:perienee (dr.scri~ as
a ' revelation' of jQus' post-Easter e.~alration) with rhe commissioning for
minist.ry (Mr. 28. 16; Gal. l.lS-16), so it is no< surprising that Q would use
similar langu;agc:
With1n d\C conapcual framework of the Q group.. che Eucer cvt:nc I.S of primary
11Qni6c:mcc: jetU~ has been given aU power 'nd h.u betn o.1lttd :u the Son o£ man.
ln the tcrmJnolocr o£ tht:ir mvironmc:nc - for how c• would they cxprcu th.inp?
- 1hq dacribtod tbit insight, whicb exceeded all human u~r~. 11 the ·~vdacion
of the Son'. 111
1'hus for Hof(rnann Q shows evidence of an experience o f the exalted post-

f..Oister Jesus, and this was what occasioned rhe confession of jt:Jus as the
Son of man.
t 16. Kk.-ppmborg. 'Usttt Fairh',pp. I J-8.4, tefet'ring coN. Putin. 'The. Son of M.an
in rhc Synopc:tC Tradition'~ 81bltn 13 fl.968), pp. ~lS: R.A. &lwarcla, Th• Sign o(}ouh
;. tiH TIMhi•l o( rk E<...fdiri<ll< Uai-.iry " ' - 1932), pp. 112, H ....... s.
t 17. ~nn. "Son of Man', pp. J-4, ll (4).
118. llorir>8, ~. pp. 2........5. a..u,g «>M«r<d Q\ Hbti&c.don of p... wirh
lhr <xahrd Soft of.,.. 1<> tu cmcrpt Vudom dtristolocr, ltu! dwly "--I>• of 'E&.re(
u • d<&.if1« .,..,..,. IS.,O.,, p. 171~
119. L£. V.uac, 'The Soo of Mao Sayinp in Q: Str.u ianphjctl Loc.a.tkm :~nd
Si.,.;fi<:ancc', mKloppmborg and Vuge (rds.), EMfy CltristWmity. Q •.wl'"'"• pp. 103-29
1127): l(Joppeobors. Exuwtiog Q, pp. 376-n.
120. A.D. Jacobtoo, 'Apocalyptic: and dll! S~ying$ Sour<e Q', in Von Sqbrocc:k ct al.
(«!"-~TIN F""r Go•t><h 1992, pp. 403-19 (407).
121. Hoffmann,.!r..Ji••, pp. !Jl>--42.
Ill. Ho£fmano, Stttd.k"• p. 1<4 1 (author•s rr~ n!lllt ion) .
26 Post-Mortem Vind0ztion of jesus in the Sayings Grupe/ Q
Hof-fmann argued that this christological cognition was in fact the

motivation for the composition of Q:
We m:ay nore the proximity of Q 10.21·22 tO tbe ea.rlr Chri.srian te:Jtimoni.ell about
Easter: for here, in the reYelation of ]e$\.1$ 'the Son'. i$ found tM Oligin of th(! group's
confenion :and tht- basis for rbc origin of the co!Jc:cr.ioo of jesus' uyings. By mean.s of
rhc revelation of Easter, it became dear (0 ]c:s.u5• dit;eiples that jeJus' daim. and a1w
his 1DCS$agc:, had not bec:o aMuJJed in his death. but utbcr had rtoei\·od valjdation
in a tta.rdins way. UJ
Q's contents receive an entirely eschatological orientation, for as the insuuc·

tions of the Son of man they arc the standard to be uKd in the judgment. n•
Thus ior Hoffmann, as for Todr, Easrer faith is both the origin of Q's bc~ef in
jesus as the coroing Son of man and the legitimation of his proclamation. u.s
Hoffmann•s view of Q 1 0.21·22 as originating in an •&seer experience• relies
on the similarities it shows with other expressions of Easter faith as mission-
legitimating r-evelations. "'hile rhe experiences c.laimed in Mt. 28 and Gal.
1 may serve the same legirimating function as Q 10.21-22, this need nor
imply that a ~lief in Jesus' resurrection was- the basis of the chrisrology of
Q 10.21-22.
Jn more recent discussions of the Son of man material ln Q, the christo·
logical issue does not .seem to come to the fore; rather, stratigraphical and
compositional que.stions are the primary focus.lU: In some uea.t mems of
the question, rhe Son of man sayings are assigned to rhe formative stage,"'1
while in others they are of deds1\le importance for the Q redac:tion(s). Ut
123. Hoffmann. Stutl•'~n, p. 142.

124. Hoffmjntt., StN.dim, p. 189.
125. It is oor entirdy clear how this view - particularly the aspect which connects
1ht origin of Q as a coU ~ion of Je$U$' uyirtg$ to the (Easter) 'apoka.lyp$i$' - «latd to
Hoft'ms.nn's mort rcc.mt vitwS oo tbt Son of man exptearion as charaatriscic of the Q
redaction (Hoffm<~nn. 'Redaction of Q').
(26. See the fUIV~ys of C.M. Tuckett, 'The Son of Man in Q', in M.C. de Boe-r (ed.J,
From Jesus to Jobn: Essay' on jesus lind Nt'W T~stllmenl Christology (Fenschrift M.
dcjonge; )SNTSup, 84; Sbtfoefd, )SOT p,.,,,
1993), pp. 196-215; T"'ke<~ Q a•d rh.
History, pp. 239-82; Hoffmann, 'Redaction of Q';j.M. Robiruon, •'fhc Son of Mao in the
Saying.'~ Gc»pd Q'. in C. EJsas («<.), TraditiQn u-,.d Translation.: Zwn Probkm der •tmr·
blwrellen Obersazbark~it religiiiser Phittomene (fesrsch.rift C. Colpe; Berlin and Ntw
Yorlc: de Gruytu., 1994), pp.llS-35; and Uro, 'Apocalyptic Symbotism', pp. 98- 101.
127. Stt, for i..ostan"' D. LUbrmann, o;. R.edlllttirm dn Logienqu~/Je (WM.Al\'T, 33;
Neuldrchen-Vluyn: Neuki.t<:btncr Verlag, 1969), pp. 4G-41. Bolb Adeto. CoUini and T~en
find Son of mao sarlnts in every layer of the Q ttadition: CoJlin.s, 'The Soo of Man Sayings
in the Sayings Source', in P.j. Kobddti and M.P. Morgan reds.), To Tow& the Ttxt: Bibliul
..d R•laud Stvdiu (F...,.hrilt ).A. FituOyer; New Yorlt' Crossroad, 1989), pp. 369-89
(389); TIICiuott, 'Son of Man', p. 215.
128. See A. Polag. Dk Christolog~ de Logknquc.Ue (WMANT, 4Si Neu.kirch<o·
Vluyn: Ncoulcircther, 19771; l<loppmbotg, Fomudkm;. Hoffm.ann. 'Reda.ction of Q'; Va.a.gr.,
'Son o( Man Sayings'. H. SchW:m.ann as.s.igns the Son of man sayings to an intermediate
•cage: Sch Urm.~M, •Beobathru.ngen w.m M~§Cbensohn ~litel il) dec- RedequeiJe•, in R.
Xbnackcnbu.cg and R. Pescb (eds.)1 }esu1 ftftd der Mmschensohn (FC$tschrih- A. VOgtk;
Tbe Death and Resurrection of j esus in Qf 27
One of the mosc significant developments arising from the intensive stud)•
devoted to the question is that most scholars now - in oontraS[ with earliet
s<:hola!$ such as TO<It and Perrin- do not t hink that the references to the Son
of man as an exalted or coming figure were traditional (that is, dominica))
ref«cnccs eventually associated with Jesus 1ater in the developing tradition.
This results, in part at least, from a widespread consensus that there was
no clearly defined •Son o f man' myth o r figure in pre-Christian apocalyptic.
literature to which jesus was aligned. 1u
Yet the question of Jesus• vindication in Q still remains a pressing one.
Robinson, for example, proposed the fo llowing scenario for the development
of the title •Son of man' in the Q material:
Q tends to indicate the initial stages of the cbristological devdoprocnt from a

ncMHirulu, non-apocalyptic idiom ol~t gen.tric meaning. thar by implication could
have espe-cially the -s~aker in mind, as us.td by Jett.1S. When(~ Q com.muniry dlen
ucribtd ro him a deci$ive r<~lc at the judStntt'lt, the idiom cMra<:tc-ristic of hi, &JX«b
was put on his t~ in apocalyptic sayings. UC.I
This developmental scenario is nor beyond question, though it has certain

merits; but it leaves unanswered the crucial issue: on what basis did the Q
community come tO ascribe tO Jesus a decisive role 3t the judgment?
J . Q, 'Easter', and the ugitimation of jesus' Teaching
It has alxeady been noted how TO<It and Hoffmann related the legitimation of
Jesus' te.ac:hings as authoritative to the {Easter-based) christoJogicaJ cognition
that jesus was checomingSon of man. In his 1981 Presidential Address to the
Society of Biblkal Lirerarure, Robinson also connected the legitimation of tht
sayings of jesus in Q to 'Easter•.UJ Robinson's views occasioned responses
which have conuihuted significantly to the q uestion of Q's strareg.ies for
legitimating the proclamation of jesus. While the death of j esus does not
Freibu_rg f Btei~u); Butt; Vienna: Herder, 1975), pp. 124-47 • 'Ob~tions on d'e Son
of M.m Tide in the Sp«<h Sowoo', inj.S.KJoppenbotg («!.),The Shape o{Q' Signal U..,.
on the Stlyinss Cosrn-1 (Minnupoli~ Fonret.i, 1994), pp. 74--97 (89, 9.$).
L29. Set-, for example, M. Casey, Son of Matt: T/,e llfletpretation 12nd ln(twenu of
Dame/ 7 (Loruloo' SPCK, 1980), 139; 11. Lind•n. }tS"' Son ofMan< A Fresh Cx4mina1/oo
of tlu Son of Man Sdyings ;n the Gospels in the Light of RLctnl R~arc.b (L.oodon: SPCk,
1983), pp. }..16; O.R.A. Hare, The Son of Man Traditio11 fMi.nnc-.ipofi.s: Forcre55, 1990),
p. 10. Howtvtt, J.J. Collins h:tJ atgucdconvincingly that aJthough a fixed c:o~ept or myth
~saoc:iat.ed wilh me up~ton 'Soo. of rrw:l' ii questiotulb1e,lht use of the expression wou~
have evohd ~ fa\l:ly well--.e5tablilhed ex-~~1 tradition bai!Cd on Da.n. 7. Set Colli(~$. 'lhe
Son of Man in First-Century judaism', NTS 38 (1.992), pp. «B~6; idem, The Supur 111td
lbe SUr: Tit< Musiabt of the Dtad Su Strolls and O rbt't Anr:k'fl Lizn.,ture (Anchor RibIt
Rcferenct Libtary; N ew Yorlr:: Doubleday, 1995}, p. 175.
UO. Robinson, 'Son of Mao', p.l3S.
131. Robinson, '}Nus - From Easter', p. 22.
28 Post-Mortem Vindication ofJesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
have great significance in any of the treatments discussed here, it may be

stressed again that the problem of legitimating jesus' sayings becomes more
acute in the face of his rejection and exec-utjon.
Robinson argued that btcauS< Q and the G()Spel o{ 1'honras lack any
reference co either the cross or resurrection, they also lack a clear reference
point for distinguishing- from the per!ipective of the works themselve.s
- between pre-Easter and post-Easter traditions. Even Q 10.21-22, which
Hoffmann h.,.d suggested reminiscent of Easterworient:ed authorita ..
wM
tions,'" and which falls 'in the middle of Q', cannot imply any kind of
chronological referent. 'Easter does not fall here, ... or anywhere else in Q.
Q has the timelessness of eternal ttuth. or at least of wisdom literature.m 3
Robinson did suggest, however, that Q seems to presume ~a priority of t he
Holy Spirit after Easter to Jesus prior ro Easrer'.ll" What this means for Q
and the legitimation of itS content is that 1je$uS rose, as the revalidation of
his word, into the Holy Spirit', so that ' Easter is then noc a point in time
in Q, but rather per-meates Q u the re;~lity of jesus' word being valid now.
Or at least so it might seem especially for cho~ who understood the resur-
rected Christ as Spirit.> 135 Robinso n meant 'Easter' 41S 41n 'event' which
occasioned a shift in the community's c.hristology, and nm merely as a change
in hermeneutical persp«:tivc:. This raised responses from Bunon Mack and
Kloppenborg.
Mack took issue with Robinson's two assumpt ions o f (1) a common
Easter faith for all forms of the early j esus movements, and (2) an apoca-
lyptic mentaliry as the common denominator for both sayings-orien£ed and
kerygma-oriented circles in early Christianity. Mack caHed this 'the apoca-
lyptic-ktrygmatic hypOthesis of Christian origins'.' " Mack rightly insisted
rhar 'Easre:r' is 'roorc:d spedlica1ly in the kerygma',u 7 but the "kerygma', if
defined in relation co (e.g.} 1 Cor. 15.3-5, Jcfr no concrete evidence in Q
as having been of formative importance for the Q community. Mack thtn
wt-nt on to ask whether any other modtl besides resurrection theology could
account for Q material such as Q 10.21 -22 in parricul.lf and for the legiti-
mation of jesus' uyi:ngs in Q in general.
Wisdom theology could explain such aspectS of Q, which in Mack's
view was moving, at the second stage of its composition, towards a re-
132. HoffmaM, Studien, p. 141.

133. RoblDSoOn, 'JesU$ ... From Eas«(£\ p. 23.
13<4. Robinson,. 'JesU$- from East«\ p. 24.
135. Robinson, 'j<sus- from Easter•, p. 24. Sttalso Robinson, •The Critica.l Edilion o(
Q .and t~ Study of J~W$·, in A. l.indcm<~nn (ed.), Th~ Soyf11g1 Sour" Q anJ th~ His.loriC41
}uw.s (BE.TL, 158; Lcuven: Uuvm University Press and Peeters, 2001), pp. 27-52 (35):
'the Q comrounity, in it$ oenual mi$sion of proelaizning the $Aylngs of Jesus, was pr9cticing
their fsith in hi' resurrection, even though resurrection langtt3gc:- is not thei11, but ours'.
136. S.L. Madt, 'tord o( the Logia: Savior or ~ge?', in C. W. Hedriclt ct d . {fds:.).•
Gospel Origins 4nd Christian Beginnings (Fc:sachrift J.M. Robinson; forum Fudck:$. 1;
Sonom•, CA' Polehrid8,", 1990), pp. :H8 ($).
137. M.a<k, 'Lord of the~··· p. 6.
The Death and Resuffection of]est<s in Q? 29
appropriation of jesus as an 'epic-apocalyptic' founder figure in supporc

of Q'-$ polemic against irs deuactors, while retaining his chjef significance
as the ori,g inator of the teachings to which the community w~5 primarily
orienred.u• This re-appropriation has implications for both the Son of man
material and the legitimation of Jesus' sayings as a wholc.u' But specifically
'the mythology of personified wisdom' attributes epic perspective to J.. us:
•This means that Jesus could easily become a revealer figure without any
a ppeal to an "'EaSler• mythologem, should the dispensation o f spec-ial
knowledge be of interest to the Q tradcnts.•l40
A similar approach was caken by Kloppenbors, although more than
Mack he appealed to aspects of Q's sapiential genre as fundamental to the
legitimation of jesus' $3yings. •tc:gitimatiOtl o ( wisdom sayings ... was a
requirement common to virtually all sapicntial co1lecrions', and this was
accomplished on the basis of either the sage's reputation or some transctn·
dental authoriry. 141 Where Q differs from other sapiential collections is in
ils belief in jesus as the 'exclusive mediator of wisdom~: 'Q ... as.sociat·c:s the
acquisition of saving knowledge specific.ally with llttachruent to Jesus and his
words. •I•U For Q this dQes not result from a belief in Jesus• resurrection, but
from a 'functional identification of jesus and Sophia•.10 In fact,
II one wish($ to spc:ak abour Eastt.r at aU, Ollt' must say that what the Markan and
post•,..tarkan Easter ttaditions loulize and partic:utari.u- by narration> Q assumes
t() h.avc: dway$ been ;a char:acteris.tM! of Jesu$• word$ u the words of Sophia. (... )
The soteriotogical intensi6c:u:ion of Jcs~· sayings and the autboriry that accrllt'd to
them are nol srounded in an c:v(O.t at the ~nd of his lift-.., but imttad arise out of the
ch~r:acur of his word$ 2$ words of, :and ultimately gu~ta(lteed by. Sophi~.t«
Thus in Kloppenborg•s view, "Easter' for Q is not an event but a hermeneu ..

ric.·d pefSpt'-"tive. 145
Mack and Ktoppenborg show that a beHef in Jesus' resurrection is noc
oecessary to the legitiiD3tion of Jesus' sayings in Q; however, if Jesus the sage
is assimila1ed to Sophia"' this only reinforces1ht problem of Q~s exalted view
of jesus- whether as the coming Son of man, or as Wisdom's messenger in
whose words lay salva1ion, or even os Wisdom herself- especially in view of
Q's knowledge:-of Jesus' death and dforts to make sense of it. If there is no
dca·t evidence for a belief in jesus' resurr«tion, is there an alternath•e mode
of vindication? Thus the major implic-dtion of the discussion so far has to
do with the presumption of rC$urrectlon as a theo logi~l category of funda -
mental or originating significance in Q. If h cannot reasonably be inferred
138. See also Mack, Lo.st Gosptl.

139. Mack, 'Lord of lh< ~··· p. 10.
140. Mack, "l.ord ohhe Logiil', pp. J0-11.
141. Klopptnborg, 'F.outer Faith•. p. 87.
Hl. Kloppe.nborg, 'Eut.:r faith', p. 88.
143. Kloppenborg, ' Ea.ster Faitb•, p. 90.
1<<. Kloppeoborg. 'Easter ra;<b'. PP· 91- n
145. Kloppcnborg. 'Wter fajth•. p. 92.
30 Post-Mortem Vindicati<>n of )esu.s m thr Sayings Gos(MI Q
from Q that resurrection theology was the foundation of the belief in jesus
as rhe coming Son or man, or as the primar)' envoy of Wisdom who could
speak in her name and whose teac.hings had soreriologicaJ value, then an
alternative answer must be sought in what Q does in fact conc01in. While Q
may hav~ known about the resurrection appearances o r traditions, and may
give Indications {at some point in t he communiry's history) of an experience
of some kind of formative or foundational chrisrologica) 'event' , and while
it may even imply a va lidation of the message of Jesus (or those speaking in
his name) as stemming from some kind of post·morrem vindication, Q does
not use 4 Cesurrection' as the central theological axiom for vindication and
validation as the Synoptics and Paul do. In effect, this is a Literary question
about what performed these functions in Q, rather than a historical question
about what Q did or did not know. Ultimately, however, historical inferences
must be drawn if it can be shown that Q brings to literary expression some
other mode of post·mortem vil'ldication. This .srudy wiU attempt to show that
Q givC$ evidence of a thcologic~l catcgOr)' - other than resurrection- which
functioned in Q to bring to expression the related issues of vindication,
exaltation, and Parousia.
Chapter 2
Q 13.34-35, THE jERUSALEM LAMENT: SURVEY OF R ESEARCH
Q 13.34-35, rhe 'Jerusalem Lament' saying (Mt. 23.37-39; Lk. 13.34-35),

provides an important way forwar_d with the problems of jesus' death and
vindicarion in the Sayings Gospel.
(34) . lipouoaAri~' J&povoaAI]IJ. n

cinOKnivoooa ToUs npo¢Hhas Kal
AI&O~OAoVOCI TOUS arrtOTCIA~··ous rrpos CIUT~V, 1YOOcXKIS ~&i/.qoa
irnauvayay&iv y(x TiKva oou, Ov Tp0rrov Opvts 'mouvciye:t Tl[ixJ) voooia
aUTi\s UrrO TCxs mipvyas, Kal oUx r\&ATioan.
(35) j&.) cX~ItTCII U~\V 0 o1KO$ u~c:lV. AOyc.> .. vlfiv, oV ~t\ ioqn ~· i"'S'
[(n~" onJl Ei1YqTE" iUAQyq~OIIQS 0 ipxo~tiiQS iv OvO~QTI KUpiou.
(34) Jerusalem Jerusalem, who kills the prophets and stones those sent to
her! How often l wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers
her nestlings under her wings~ bur you were nor willing!
(35) Look, your house is for<aken! .. I tell you, you will not see me until
((«the dme• comes when]] you say: Blessed is the one who comes in the
name of the Lord! 1
The verbal simHariry between Matthew and Luke here (only fivt' minor
disagreements)' means the reconstruction of the wording of Q 13.34-35 is
not problt'matic.. However, rhe original position of the saying jn Q is a matter
of some debate. because Mt. 23.37-39 follows Q 11.49-51 1 {Mt. 23.34-36),
t. Robinson er .al., CritiCill Edition, pp. 42~23. Ooubl~ squ.art braekcu indicare
probable but unctnain wordings, cwo dots rtprt'stDt materi-al which may ba"e been
pri!Sent but c:::ant'\Ol be rec:onsrructed. and double :~.ngk bratk~t"' in tht tn1UI;~otion ttpttstnt
words not in the Greek but ne«!illa.tY co the rt&naJation's sense (Crltlcal ediriQn, pp.
!xx- boocviii).
2. Robill$0n et a L, CritiC~JI &#tion, pp. 422-23, wbicb alliO det&ils teXto(ritic31
probJems in Mr. 23.37-39 and Lie. 13.34-JS.
3. Aocording to the Critical &lition of Q, Q 11.52 did I'IOt Ofiginally follow Q
11.49-$1, but Q 11.46 (Critic41 Edition, pp. 280-81).
32 Post-Mortem Vmdication of )esU> mthe Sayings Gospel Q
while Lk. 13.34-JS follow• Q 13.28·30.' In addition, there is disagreemenr

about the developmenc of the saying: many consider that the AiyG.l UIJi"
sentence {13.35b) is ;t late or redactional addidon to the saying, and others
chink that the whole complex was a late addition to the Q document. As to
the sa)·i_ng's origiJl, many scholars think it was (in whole or in pan ) originally
a Jewish judgmem saying taken O\'CC by Q. Most scholars agree, however,
about how the Lotment should be assessed form<ritically: it is a 'minatory
sayiog' or a ~prophetic oracle of judgment'.'
The interpretation of the saying is fraught with problems., and there
appears to be little ronsensus on individual details. For example, if Q 13.34-
35 originally followed Q 11.49·51 in Q (as Matthew has ir), Q 13.34-35
would be the original sequel to Q 11.49·51. If so, rwo further issues emerge;
the origin of t he saying(s}, and the-significance of th~ M.yUl UIJiVclause in
13.3Sb. One way or another, the common ground berwecn these two sayings
- the theme of the rejection and murder of God's prophets and emissari~
-musE be addresst<d.
-4. Proponents of the Manhaean ordtt are: Harnack,. Sayings of}t$JI.S, pp. 168-69,
179; P.W. Schmiedt-1, D"t vierk E.wng~llum gcgntil~ den dr~1 rrJCpr Job.:mnesschriftnr
des Neum Testaments (Ti.ibingcn: Mohr -S.itbtck, 1906), p. 451; J.H. Micluel, 'The Umenr
over Jeru.s.akm', AjT22 (1918J., pp. ll)l ... ]J (103--7); B.W. &con, Slwd;.s ;, J.f#tthew
(London: Henry Holt, 1930), pp. 247-48; R. Bulr.mann.. Th~ H~tory of the Synop1ie
Tradilion (uans. J. Marsh; Oxford; Blackwel4 N<w Yodu Harpe~ re••. «<n, 1968), p. liS;
LUhrm.ann, Rt4aJction., p. 48; MJ. Suggs, Wisdom. Chri.stology. IUfd Law in MtRtbtw's
Gospel {Cambrldge, MA: Ham.{"d Un.ivet1iry Pres&, 1970), pp. 64---66; F. Nt.iryock, 'Rect:nl
Developments in~ Study of Q', i.n J. Dt-Jobd (ed.), Logia: Us Pa:rok1 de }ISM!.- TIN
Sayings o(Ju.us (ln M tftl ori~trn J. Coppcl.'\.f:i 8ETL_, 59: Leuvt>n: Lwvcn Uni-.·cnity Puss aod
Pencrs, 1982}, pp. 29- 7S (6~7); R.A. Piper. Wisdom in thr Q TrtJdition: Tl~ Apboristie
Teaching of }~sus {SNTSMS, 61; Cambridge:: Cambridge_Univcnity Press, 1989). p. 165;
O.ft Catchpole, 1·he Q~#st for Q f£dinburgh, T&T Cl.ark, 1993}, pp. 257-SS; j.M.
Robinson. '8uildi.ng Blocks in the SQcial History of Q', in H. Tau.s:sig and B.A. C3ste11i
(cds.), R~imagining Christian Origins (Festsehrift R.l. M.1clc; Valley Forge, PA.: Triniry
Prmlntem.ational. 1996), pp. 87-112; Robinson, 'The S<qucru::r of Q: l'br Umrnt over
Jerusalem\ in U. Bum and R. Hoppe (eel$.), Von }all$ wm ChristtU: Chritrolo~h~
Studien (Festschrift P. Hoffmann; SZNW, 93; BerHn; New Yorlc: de Gn.ayter, 1998), pp.
225-.60 {2SJ-60); A.X. Kir-k, TIN Composition of th~ Silyingr Souru: Cmr-e, SY'fdffony,
aM Wisdot" Red#ctio" i11 Q INovTSup, 91; Lt-idcn.: Btlll, 1993), pp. 24144. Propoaenu
of the Lukan pla(:erotnt indude: Strtertr. Fotlr Go~4. p. lH; Mansoa. &lying;. pp. 126,
394; Hinch, FrimgNthichu, pp. 2.132-33; E. Hacnchcn, "Mattbiuo 2.1', ZTK 48 ( 19$1~ pp.
38--63 (.i6-S7}; P. Vl\Ssiliadii, 'Tht Original Order of Q: Some Residual C..ses'.Jn Ddobd
(ed.j, Logid, pp. 379-87 (382, 387); Kloppenborg, PlmHlltiQtt, pp. 227-29;Jac.obson., Fittl
Cosptl, pp. 2{19-10; F1eddemunn, Rea.mstruaiOft and C()mmentary, pp. 70()..1; d . Sted.,
lm~l., p. 2.31. Tu-ckett notes that either pla«mmt of W Lammt could be Sttn u mba:ion:aJ
(Q and tJH HiJtot"y,pp. 1 7~74, though he think$ the r:wosar~t' were originally .eparate io
Q. p. 174 n. 2); so also F. CbriM,}~sus Sophia: Die Sophia-Christologie bei den Synoptikem
{ATANT, S7, Z u<;ch; Zwingli, 1971)), pp. 136-37; Hollm•M, Studi<n, p. 172; D.E. Gadand,
TIH lnu-ntion ofMatth¢UI 23 (NovTSup, Sl; Lridm: BciU, 1979., p. 197,
S. Bulunann, Hi,tory, pp. 114-15; Steck, lmul, pp. 58-59; Sc:hub, Spruehq.ulk,
pp. 352- 53; Boring, Soyings, p. 171; Kloppcnborg, Formar;cm, p. 229; FIOOderroann,
R~conuruc:tion 4nd Commmtary, p. 705.
Q 13.34-35: s..,.,.,. of Res•arcb 33
Q 13.35b poses nvo main inrerpreracive problems. First, the clause 'You
wiiJ not see me until you S3y ... • has generated a number of dJfferem inrerpre~
tations. This line could be a reference tO the departure of Wisdom, as in Prov.
1.24-28 and 1 .En. 42.2, but. as Bultmann noted, the reference co rhc Coming
One suggests a rerum, and there is no Jewi.sh evidence for Wisdom departing
and returning.' Some understand 'you will nor see me ..: to ~ferro the
dearh of Jesus and see the reference <0 the Coming One as a prophecy of his
return to judge those who rejected him.' Others see in Q 13.35b a reference
tO a hidden, absent, or un5een Son of man, parttcularly in relation ro other
Q material such as Q 17.22 (many will long to see rhe Son of man but will
nor}' or Q 17.23·24 (the coming of the Son of man will be aslighming).'
The second problem is the reference toPs. 117.26 LXX (Q 13.35b). For
some scholars, the citation has an optimistk tone, balancing the forsakenness
of the house declared in Q 13.35a.10 Some sec the !t.:~s-dause as a conditional
prophecy: 'Q 13:3Sb ... means not, when the Messiah comes, his people will
bless him, but rather, when his people bless hirn. the Mes~iah will come.' 11
Ochers believe the Comiog Ooc comes in judgment, since 0 ipxOJJE\105'
appears earlier in Q as a 6gure of judgment (Q 3.161>-17). 12 A few see a
reference to jesus• entry into Jerusalem (Mk t 1.1-1 1 parr.).lJ
The following surve.y e\'aluares major contributions to the intcrprerarion
of the jerusalem lament as a saying of Q. Important interprcrative matters
remain unresolved) and require closer analysis.
Q 13.34-JS with 11.49-51 as Sayings of Wisdom
Harnack sugge~'itc:d that Q 13.34-JS is a quotation from a now-lost jewish

apocryphal writing, in part because he thought the j erusalem Lament
6. BuhmaM, HUtory, p. 11$; so also many ochers, iiKiudins 'b'lkc:, 'Enttiicl::uns' ,

pp. 514-15, and K~ppenborg, Form4tion, p. 228.
1. Hoffmann. Studien, p. 188: 'Jesusvt-rkUndigung', p. 64.
8. D.C. Allison, T~ jesUJ Tr4dition in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press Inter·
national~1997), p. 203.
9. Catchpole, Qwst~ p. 274: 'The one who hugone away (d . Q 19:12) and who
wiU c;ome (Q 12:43; 19:15} if t he Son or ro~n .'
10. R. Uro. Shup Among the Wolves: A Study on tin Mission lnstn.aiom of Q
{Annates Academia<: k ienti.arum Fmnic:ae, Disserntioocs Huma~cum Littcnrum, 47;
Helsinki: Suornalainen Tiedeakattmia, 1937). pp. 237-40; Alli!.On_}11.u TrtJdition, pp.
192- 204; Tuckett, Q •nd the History, pp. 174,204-07.
II. ALLison, Jesus Tr.adition~ pp. 196 ...201 (201); H. van der Kwuk, 'Die Klagt Ober
Jetu.ukm (Matth.. X:XW 37-39)', No11T8 (1966), pp.1S6-70; D.C. A1ti$0D0 'Mnt. 23:39
• Lukt 13:3Sb u a Condit ional Propbtcy', ]SNT 18 t 1983)t pp. 75-8-4.
12. So 8ult:nurm. HiJtory. p . 11$; HoUmann, Studien. pp. 175-78; ZeUt:t,
' £ntrUckung', p. S 19.
13. Huhsren, Normati~.~t Christianity. pp. 33-34; Meadors. Messianic HNald, p.
305.
14. HJroack~ $tJ)'I'" lf o( )UUJ, pp. 103, 169. J.H. Michael nored rhat the view
34 Post-Morum Vindkation of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
originally fo llowed Q 11.49-51 in Q, and that the attribution of the words

to 'Wisdom' (Lk. 11.49) was original to Q as well. The quotation simply
continued-. at least until the words of Jesus following the formulak- Aty~
UIJIV (13.3Sb).,.. The Mattbacan placement of the saying is not indispensable
to thi! vtew, for many have drawn anemion to the wisdom motifs and the
purportedly 'supra-hlsto.ricaJ' perspective of the speaker. tS Since Harnack,
many have been reluctant to assign the saying (in whole or even in pare} to
an apocryphal writing, but allow that it might have originally been a piece
of (pre-Christian} Jewish tradition" which was later, in Christian hands,
expanded with v. 35b."
Like Harnack, Rudolf Bultmann argued that the jerusalem Lament
continues the quotation begun in Q 11.49, thinking it 'highly probable
that Mtttthew has here preserved the order of sections in Q\ but that
Luke displaced. the saying fro m irs original Q context, on the basis of the
catchword 'Jerusale-m \ to an earlier context {Luke 13.31-33}. 11 Bultmann
also thought jesus himself could neither have sent prophets nor offered often
to gather the children of Jerusalem: thus 'the one making this sratemem must
be a supra-histor,c.al entity, namely Wisdom'.l' Like 11.49-St, the lament
was 'also originally a Jewish prophecy, whether Jesus himself quoted ir or
whether the Church ascribed it to him'. Bultmann wondered whether verse
probably originarcd with O.F. S-ttaw.s, A New Li(4 of)~us (2 vols..; London: Willi:uns &
Norgace, 2nd cdn, 1879), pp. 1.341-42; Michael. 'Lament ovc:r Jcrusa)('ID'. p. 102 n . .3.
15. BuJtmann, History, p. 11<4. Sttalso Hseoc.bt:n, •Matthlw 23', pp. 5~57• Sttdc,
lsriikl. pp. 2J.O-:Jl; SU83', Vliulom, p. 61; Klop~lxng, FOffl'IIJtio"t p. 228; Pipe.r. Wisdom,
pp. 164-6S; ja(;obton., FiNt Gospd, p. 213; TU(:kttt, Q and the Histt>ry, pp. 174-75. On
the ~r ha~ many S« jesus as ~ apeU:er (with certQiio variations. as nOted): Grist.
Jaws S<>phta, p. J<4S (Jesus is identified with Sophia); Hoffmann, Studim1 pp. 17~75 Uesus
speaking nor u a s.upra·hitterk.al eotiey, but dt&~:ribing his own expcritoct of rejection);
8ori~ Soyi-ttgs, 111-73 (the risco Jesus spealdng through the Q p!ophets; so also M il~t.
'l«jecrion', pp. 2J5-37); Uro, She'J' Among Wolvtl, pp. 236--37 Ue.us $peJking: 'as a
superhuman, djvioe authority'),
16. B~,~ltnunn, HiJtory, pp. 114-1$; H~ctk.'ben, 'Mattbius 23', pp. S6o-S1; Van dcr
Kwaak, 'Klagc··, p. tS7; Steck, lsr~UI, pp. 233-39 (though for St«k t~ saying wa.s not
in Q); Christ,)u.u SophiD., pp. 138-40; Klupptnbocs. Formation, p. 218. Othc:n S« the-
saying as originating in iti entirety in the: Q com.municy: fi.rsr of all Sc-hulz, SprwhqueJJe,
pp. 348-49; &odng. Sayinfl, p. 171;Jacobson, Fir$1 GOS(Hll, p. 213; Millet, ' Rejeaion', p.
2J8.
11. Bulrmann, HUtory, p . llS (though uncertain bow much of 13.3Sb is ao
expansion); Hae11c:hen, •ManhlU$ 23', p. 57; SU38S, Wisdom, pp. 69 ..70; Hoffmann.
51-..JJ'm., pp. 176-?7; N cityndt, 'Reeer_u ()e,·clopmcnt.s ', p. 66; Kloppcnborg, fonmujon,
pp.l28: Catc:bpole, Qut1-t for Q, pp.l7.3-74; Tuckett. Q ~~~d rln Wsuwy, p. 175. Others
lfor varying re2sons) bold th2t 1334·35 w:as an origio2lly uniury piece o! lNidition:
Van der Kwaak. 'KJage'. p. 16<4; St~k. lmul, pp. 227. 23.S; Jacobson, First Gospel,
p. 211 {disoemins 4 chiastic taucrurc); Miller, 'Rt;cction•. p. 2J4 n. 36: Fk:ddennun.
R.e«Ptttrwctio~ ll1td Ct>Mmt1114,., p. 707.
18. BuJtmann, History, pp. ll~ 1S.
19. Harnack. Sayi,gs o{/UtlS, pp. 168-69; &ultmann, History, p. 114.
20. .8uJtmaMt Hisloryt p. 115. Accordingly, Q 13.15 originally- read, ·~bold, JOUt
Q 13.34-JS: Survey of Researd> JS
35b as a whole or only the material prior to the i(a)S-<:.lause was a Christian
addition.10
Thus both Q 11.49·51 and 13.34·35 must be understood in light of the
wisdom myth. h is a weiJ ..established component of the myth that Wisdom
comes to the earth~ offers invitation to humanity in vain, and departs (see..
for instance, 1 Enoch 42). Bultmann took both parts of Q !3.35 - the
foNakenness of the house and the disappearance of the speaker- to refer tO
Wisdom's departure. Accordingly, then, AEyoo UIJiv continues the Wisdom
quotation, and there is no ~ange of speaker. Funher, Wisdom will 'remain
hidden until the-coming o( the Mt$Siah ... the one £px~E~ Ev 0v0J,~an
IC\Iplou' •.u BuJtmann admitted that no surviving jewish wisdom texts show
evidence of the view that •Wisdom, on her departure. referred tO her (or
her representatives) coming to judgment, but it is quite intelligible in the
context of the myth'.22 Also unclear on 8u1tmann•s reading is precisely how
the coming of the Messiah was to be understood as the reappearance of
Wisdom.
Ernst Haenchen's 1951 article on Matthew 23 made rwo important
contributions. Fi!"$t, Haenchen argued that Q 11.49·S1 and 13.34·35 were
not originally together in a lost wisdom text, bec-ause they pres-em different
'historical" pers~tives on the rejet:tion of the prophets. He noted that in
Q 11.49·S1, 'Wisdom' looks ahead propbeticallr to the future sending of
the prophets, but in Q 13.34·35, the speaker looks back o n the sending
of the prophets as something in the p2St.13 However, wrote Jack Suggs,
'in keeping with it$ form the doom oracle almost requires; a futu_re tense,
while the dirge form of the lament equally require$ the past'.lf More to
the point is Robinson's objection chac cbe forward-looking perspective of
11.49· 5 1 'is simply a device to present fthe oc:currc:nccs of history] once. they
bavc occurred as fu(fillmeDts of God•s plan•.lJ Furthermore, the participle
in•xu~hoov (Q 11.50) has a pment and nor a pte·historieal perspective,
'looking bacl through aU of history ... , t'len back tO its vtry beginning,
co prescnc as culpable aU of history (as far as it goes in biblical terms: to 2
Chronicles)•.u
Haencheo also argued that originally the pre-Christian saying ended
at 13.35a~ thus, Alyw VJJi'v and what follo ws 'is not a c-itation fwm the
Wisdom text, but is already a Christian addition in ..-Q ,.,.11 He diS41greed with
boU;SC ia (= will remaio) foruken until you $-Ay, •at~d i.s the Coming One: in the nam<'
of the Lord,..' B.ulonann did not explain wh:u morivued the :addition of ).f.ycu ~iw oU u~
i&)Ti ~t.
21. Sultmann, His.tory. p. l lS.
22. Bultttunn. History. p. 11$.
23. H.aencbtn, 'Manhius 23'.• p. 56; Jacobson, First Gosptl, p. 209.
24. Suggs. Wisdom, p. 65.
25. RobUuon, "S<quenc< ol Q', p. 244.
26. RobinsOQ.. 'Sequence of Q', p. 2-«.
27. Haen~hen. •Mattbius 13', p. 57 (author's uanslarioo).
28. Van d« Kwaalc, 'Kla:ge', p. IS7.
36 Post-Mortem Vindieation of]eSUJ in the Sayings Gospel Q
Bultmann that tbe verSt' refers to Wisdom r~maining hidden until her return
with the Messiah. Many interp~:eters would agree th4lt Q 13.35b - either
because it inrroduces some othe.r inconsistency with the saying's wisdom
perspective. or because of the formulaic: ~fyCal U~v~ a characteristic o_f Q- is
a redactional addition.
Q l3.3Sb as a Conditional Prophecy
H. van der Kwaak's study of the jerusalem Lament in Matthew asked

whether the saying tefers to a future conversion of israel {Mt. 23.39; Q
13.3Sb). Following Bultmann, van der Kwaak thought that the whole oaying
was originally 'a Jewish prophecy' (Q 11.49-51), either quoted by Jesus or
attributed to him by the community,at but he contested the view that Mt.
23.39 was a Christian addition: "one ca11 maintain with equal iusrificatiOil
that v. 39 was the original conclusion of vv. 37-38'.n Van dcr Kwaak's more
important contribution was his suggestion that Matthew•s i (t.)s<lause should
be understood as a 4;0ndirion. To begin with, he argued that tVAoyrwi\.Jr05 0
ipxO,.,,vos iv OvO~aT• ~evplou has an inherently positive meaning. The line
cannot be understood as referring to the coming of jesus as judge. ··nere
is here ... no basis to think in terms of a rcembling greeting of a Lord who
comes for judgment .... The tUAoyt'llJiVOS" 0 EpxbJJtVOS' iv OvOllaTt k'Upiou
points wirhout a doubt to a greeting of praise for Jesus as the Messiah.'JO
The more dominant view has been that t3.3Sb refers to the praise that
accompanies condemnation at the final judgment: jerusalem's recognition
of the Coming One will he too late." Others have read the Ps. 117.26 LXX
citation more positively as signifying a hopeful prospecr for jerusalem.32 Yet
van der Kwaak also rul~d out the view that the saying refers to a certain
future conversion of Israel at the Parousia, mainly because he found no
evidence of such an expectation elsewhere in Matthew, and because such a
positive reading does not 6t as the conclusion of Matthew 23. J.l Instead, be
proposed that ic:.>S &v &i TTT}Tt should bt- taken not as a temporal stacerne-mJ4
29. V.:an der Kw:tak, 'Kls.ge', p. 164 (:~.uthor't tt;tnJI~tiOI)}.

30. Vander Kwaak, 'Klage'. p. 166.
31. Set M.;t~:~$01), Stlyinss. p. 128; Ste.:~ lmul, p. 237; Hoffm.tr:~n. Studict. p. 178•
SchulL, Spruchqw1lk, pp. 3S8- 59 {strenuou.styt; Polag, Christologie, p. 94; Garland,
1ntSHtiott, p. 207 (in Matthew, at lean); Zeller, 'Entrikkung', p. $ 17.
32. Uro, Sheep Among Wolvu, pp. 237-38; Catchpole, Quest, pp. 27 1-74; Tuclu:tt,
Q iUtd 1M History, pp. 174, 204-7. Sevcnich· B.u (/muds Konfrontation, p. 362t thinks
the tOnfession of JC$us as Son of man wa.s CC)nsidcred redcmpc:ive (even for Jeru:s;_km,
potentially at lnsc). jacobson thinks t his ref~n to a welcoming ~ttirude row-a.rd prophetic
messengers (Did. 12.1; Pirst Gosp.l, p. 211).
33. Vao der Kwaak, •KJag~·, p. 168 .
.H . In conua$t with. fc.>S fKf t On fi'"ln (ane$tod by 0 il) tk. U.3.Sb), which van
det Kwuk admitted shobld be r.1ken temporalty ('Klage•, p. 169); be thought Manhew
altered what appears in luke to 't(o)S' &v lP· 1?0t.
35. See the evidence 3upplied in v"'n der Kw;a.,k_, 'Kiage'', pp. 16.9-?0.
Q 13.34-35' Survey of Research 37
- which would imply that the speaker's absence would end when the greeting
is uncred - but as- a condition.H 'The separation will come to an end when
you will acknowledge me a.s the Mcs:sia.h. •.u The greeting W~OYfllii'WOS" 0
ipxOil£\105 s igni6es an acknowledgment of jesus as the one who would come
ahcr john, rather than a n 3cknowledgment of him at rhe Parousia. This is
an invitation to conversion. through which the punishment descr ibed in Mt.
23.37·J9a is removed.)' This reading of the 'until you say' clause has been
argued more recently by Dale AUison.n
The most significant djffcrtnct between the interpretations of van dcr
Kwaak and Allison is that Allison undetstands Q l3.35b eschatologically.
'The conditional interpretation commends itself by finding a middle ground
that avoids the pitfalls of the other alternatives', namely, interpretations
that see Q 13.35b as an announcement of either unqualified judgment ot
unquaJified salvation/~ Allison offered four arguments: first, o ften in late
Jewish sourc;.c:s the time of the final redemption is contingenc on some other
event(s); second, Ecus can indicate a cQnting.ent state in Greek sente,nees;
third , the structure of Q 13.3Sb is similar to a formula found in rabbinic
literature (negative statement about the messianic advent; conditional
partide ,1'; condition to be met); and fourth, the conditional interpretation
.finds a satisfying 'middle g.round'.•0 Allison advanc-es van dec Kwaak's
position considecably. 41
Vander Kwaak offered little insight into the signi.ficance of the •you will
not see me~ clause. Because he understood the reference ro the 'Coming
One• non·eschatologlcall)·, Jerusalem's •not seeing• is an csuangemc:nt from
[he speaker which is ~lleviated by their rcc(>gnition or acknowledgment of
Jesus a s the Coming Messiah announced by J ohn." He shifted the emphasis
from the apodosis of the conditiOnal sentence- w hich, in his view. gives
the speaker's disappearance, as the result of nor fulfilling che condicion o f
acknowledgment- tO the punishment which i$ emph~sizcd in Q 13.34· 3Sa.
Thus, chere is an invitation ro alleviate Jerusalem's punishment, bu[ the
disappearance of the speaker remains something of a mystery.
In Allison's view, ,,.You will nor see,., recalls Q 17.22, according to which
people will long to ~>ee ooe of the days of rhe Son of ma.n but will not see it.
In both places t.b e present is marked by the Son of man's absence. But that
abst-nce will become a presence when unbelief gives way m belief. ' 0 Allison
36. Van & r Kwuk, 'Kb ge•,p. 168.

37. Van dec Kwaak, <KJage', p. 170.
38. Allison. 'Matt. 23:39 .,Luke 13:3Sb'; idem,}t$N$ TrtaditiOn mQ, pp. 192- 204;
also Cat~hpole, QN,Sl, p. 214; sirnjJarly .Boring. SIZ')Iings, p. 172 (but in a Christi~
prophetic context).
39. A.llison, ' Man. 23:39 • Luke 13:3.Sb". p. 80.
40. Alli•on, 'Man. 2Jo39 =Luke Bo3Sb', pp. 77- 81.
41. See further Allison,Je.su.s: TroJdiJitm in Q, pp. 198-203.
42.. V.tn der Kwuk, 1Gage'. p. 168.
43. Allisoo,)t'sus Tradition in Q. p. 203.
44, AJiison,Jwu Tradition in Q, p. 203 n. .Sl.
38 Post-Mortem Vindication of]esm in the Sayings Gospel Q
thinks that Jesus' absence is to be understood as a punishment, but it. also

charac:terizcs the time before the Parousia.« What AIHson calls 'Q 17.22" is
only found in Luke:' however, where it is addressed to the disciples (as, moest
likely, was the eschatological material in Q 17).
Q 13.34-35, the Deuuronomi.stic Tradition, and the Wisdom Myth
Stec-k's srudy of the deureronomiSlic motif of the vioJem fate of prophets was
important for the study of Q." Steck did not think the jerusalem lament
derived from Q,47 bur his interpretation was neve,r theless important and
inJluential. He believed that Jewish judgment-sayings were preserved in both
Q 11.49-50 (v. 51 being a later Christian addition") and 13.34-35; although
the two sayings were not actually joined before Matthcv..,..,s gospel, they
nonetheless at0$C from che same drc:le-in Palestinian Judaism and, having the
same genre e prophetic saying of judgment'), they share a number of common
fea tures." Wisdom personified speaks in both sayings, although they differ
in historical perspective. Both also extend the violent rejection of prophers
to include those sent (11.49; 13.34) to Israel after the biblical period." Moot
importantly for Steck, the two sayings represent a unique-combination of
deuteronomistic and wisdom traditions. In Q 11.49·50, which Steck dated
berween 150 BCEand tbecomposirjon of Q,st Wisdom, as the one who sends
the prophets, stands in che place of God as speaker and judge. According
to Steck, this happened because in the deuterooomistic tradition God issues
a call through prophe-t s, and in the wisdom tradition Wisdom issues s uch
an invitation directly." In Q 13.34-35 this is developed further: Wisdom,
who in an earlier tradition was scorned by the nations but found a home in
jerusalem (Sir. 24.11), now is scorned by Israel and withdraws."
4S. lb~ JQP thought Llc. 17.22 was not in Q: Robinson, et :al., Critie41 Edition 1 pp.
500.01 .
~- Suck, hrotll. MOJt Q scholar$ * t~ ckuttronomjstic tr~djtion :as \•iul for the
tboology of Q, if not for iu composition history: sec:, e.g.. jacobson, fflr Costnl, pp.
7(}.76.
•7. S'eek thought th.t saying originated i.n a $ettin& eharacurited by a fear of .a.n
imminent dcstru~on of Jerw.aJem (i.e., during tM JewLsb WarJ, .so does ooc dcrh·e from
Q (brad, pp. 237-39,283 n. I}; d. Robinson. 'X.quence of Q\ p. 248.
<48. St«k .lm~tl, p. 223.
<49. Stee:k, lsr.ul, pp. 231-l21 239.
50. Stedt, /.ir4t:l~ pp. 22.3, 2J1-J2.
SI. Steck, l~t4tl, p. 226.
52. Sr«.k, /srMl, pp. 225-16. Cf. Tuckett, Q and th# History, p. 170: 'Q thus seem$
to have inttoduc.:ed a DC'W rombination of tr~dirions in interpreting tbe re:jcctioo of i~ own
MHltng_ers u in ;;~ lin~ of continuity with the rejected pr<~phcu. of the deut.eronomistit
tudirion and with the 6gure o( rejected Wisdom.'
53. Steck, IMMI, p. 232.
54. Stecl<. 1.,..1, pp. 227, 235.
Q 13.34-35: S11rvey of Rest4rch 39
According to Steck, Wisdom therefore must be the spe-aker rhroug_hout

Q 13.34-JS; he saw 110 evidence of any Christian expansion in this 'piece
of Jewish tradition'." The supra-historical speaker of Q 13.34 cannot be
God because of the divine passive Cc4>1nat in verse JSa; rhus the speaker
throughout the saying is the personified Wisdom who withdraws from
Jerusalem in verse 35b.» In particular, v. 35b brings ro fruition the judgment
announced in v. 35a, so that the withdrawal of Wisdom signifies: a crime
without salvation' in which divine judgment arrives as the destruction of
Jerusalem: 'this following rime cannot therefore be undernood as a period of
change and obedience'•5' But the EW5.clause signifies rhar 'the following time
without salvation is admiuedly temporary', and it looks aht.ad to an eschato-
logical tim~ when Wisdo m's presence would be restored to jerusalem..sr
Steck knew that no (surviving) source describes a return of the withdrawn
Wisdom, so he took Q IJ.JSb to refer to the Son of man. Can the coming
of the Son of man be equated with the return of Wisdom? 'Then the people
will see once more Wisdom who withdrew, but in the form of the deeds of
the Son of man, who judge$ and cond~mns.•n Thus Wisdom reappears a$ an
inherent characteristic of the judging office of the Son of man. T!Us is odd
bec-.ause another figure, the Son of man. im.rudes lnto the framework of the
wisdom myth. st
Felix Chrisr's analysis of the Jerusalem Lament was influenced by Steck,
whose conclusions concerning the saying'$ genre, tu.dition history, and
inHuences {the deuteJ:'onomiuic and wisdom traditions) Christ accepted.
Chri<t also accepted the mychical framework proposed by Steck, including
the inuusioo of the Son of man intO th~ wisdom sc.hema.'° Christ's main
conuibutioo was thar he allowed rhe saying to stand in its relationship to
Je$us: 'in the jerusalem saying as adapted in a Christian context, the speaker
of the Sophia-word is now ]e.sws; he now speaks the saying as the .. be.are:r of
Wisdom"*.61 jesus, identified with Sophia, dwells as Shekina in j erusalem,
works through prophets and emissaries, makes appeals as the Law, is
rejected, disappears, and cecums as the Son of man.61 Because Christ saw ao
idenri6cation of Jcsu.s a nd Wisdom •• Sicz im Leben of the saying in Christian
circle~'-' the: withdrawal of Wisdom which others perceived in Q 13.3Sb now
55. Stcd,ls..,.l. pp. 23()-32.

S6. Sr~. Israel, p. 235 (autbor's translation).
S1. Steck. b.rael, p. 236.
58. St«k, lsr4el, p. 237. Steck referred to 1 £n. 49..3-4; 51.3.
S9. Hoffmann, St:u1Ji•"-, p. 176. also nOted th.i3 dif6culty, but Stcck't vie-w was nevtt-
t.~l~!l trillmaintained by Schulz,. Spnu:bqu#lk, p. 359.
60. Christ,}•"" SophU., PI'• 142-43.
61. ]#SUJ Sophia. p. 145 (authorll rtansUnion; empb.asis original); d. W.
Christ,
Grundman~ Oas fll41'1gell vm Mch U.l41 (TH)(h"T, 3; Berlin: Ennsetist:he Vttlagannalt,
2.nd«<n, 1961), p. 289.
61. O.rist,/""' SophU., pp. 145-48.
63. {l,zlst thought tht different contexts in which the s.aying appean itJ Matthew
and luke mitis;att ap.ii'IS't c:errajney llboUt its origimliry tO Q U#sus Sophill, p. 136).
64. Olritt,}uus SophUa, p. l.t7;empha&is origi"-1.
refer'$ co jesus' disappearance through his death, resurrection a nd ascension:

'jesus• death and resurreetion appear as the single n~ent of the departure
of Wisdom, who found no place on earth to lay down her head, and who
returned tO her place. Jesus' ascension is therefore-nothing other than the
disappearance of Wisdom. It proves that j esus is identified with Wisdom. •f<'
Since Wisdom•s departutc: v--as considerc:d an esch:uological sign (Pcov. 1.28;
1 En. 93.8; 94.5)? so was jesus' disappearance.'-' Thus Christ anticipated, in
411 limited way, the a rguments of Zeller, who tried tO s how that the speaker's
disappearance in Q lJ.JSb was a reference to Jesus' 3ssumprion, and th~u
the 'Sign of Jonah' was 'the siglt of the one taken away until his return a,s
t he Son of man'. u
Suggs, on rhe: other hand, rhought ~he speaker in this pericopt was., in
Q, Sophia', but that the saying 'can properly be attributed to Jesus only
when the .step is taken which Matthew makes in the preceding pcric:ope,
that is, when Wisdom and jesus arc: identi6ed•.47 But~ in his opinion, Q had
not yet taken this step. Suggs' interpretation ran into t he same difficulty as
Bultmann's: the return of Wisdom is not a nested in Jewish wisdom materials,
o
so ipxo~•IIOS cannot be the speaker. but muSt be the Messiah (not the Son
of man). Thus 'Bultmann is correct in his opinion that "Wisdom fore·tetls that
s he will remain hidden until the coming of the Messiah" .>68 Like Bultmann,
Suggs left unexplained how the coming of the Messiah is to be understood
as the reappearance- of Wisdom.
Q 13.34-35 and the Reieaion of jesUJ
Hoffmann•s view~ as seen in the previous c;hapter, is that Q 13.34-35

explicitly includes Jesus) own fate in t he violent fate of the prophets: che
jerusalem Lament refers 'unequivocally' m t he rejection and death of
jesus, parricularly in the 'you will not see me ... • line.•" In his essay on
'je:s-us-proclamacion in the Sayings Source'• Hoffmann incerpreted Q 13.34
as indicating Jesus• own rejet:tc:d appeals to Jerusalem. 'The comment
"from now on you will no Jonger .sec me'" refers to the death of Jesus. Q
additionally speaks not only of the threarening judgment, bur also ro chc:
coming judge; rhus ir is dear that the one who is rejected is identical to the
one who is coming. •i'Q f'or lioffrnaon, the belief in Jesus as the coming Son
6$. Christ,/nNI Sophia, pp. H6-47.

~. 2tUt>r, 'ErurUckung'~ pp. 514- 16,522-25 (ciution from p. 522; aurhor's r:r:..os..
12rion).
67_ Suggs:, WisdOnf, p. 61.
6)_ .S~ WiJdom, p. 70~ citing 8ulu:nann. History, p. US.
69. Hoffmann, Staulien, pp. 187-88.
70. Hoffmann. 'jcsusvcrkiindigung'. p. 6<4 (aurhor's tt;u~tnioo).
71 . Hoffmann. 'JesusverkUndigung', pp. 64-65; StMdi~. pp. 187-.90; d . Sevenieb·
Q .13.34-35: Survey of Resear<h 41
of man meant that the rejection and death of jesus was, fo r Q, rhe decisive
rejection of God's (or Wisdom's) appeal to the people of Israel through the
prophets. 7 1
Hoffmann clarified and expanded this position in later work, in which
he took issue with Steck's analysis. In Hoffmann's view, Q 11.49-S I and
13.34·35 were first joined by Matthew and the two sayings were not origi·
nally together in Q; from this it followed that wrule 11.49-5) is given by
Q as a saying o£ Wisdom, 'the Jerusalem saying in contrast is conveyed in
Matthew and Luke as a &3ylng of jesus',12 against the prevailing view that
the speake.r was 'supra-historical'. There is no reason to think the speaker is
rhc one who sends the 'prophets and sent ones' (Q 13.34}, as is the case in
Q 11.49. Although the present participles in the address to jerusalem reflect
a general hlsmrical characreristic of the dcy,73 rhe ctutnge in tense ro aorist
in the speaker's statement {t\8i.~floa) rdc.rs to the speaker's own experie-nce
jn Jerusalem.r• Similarly, 'Jerusalem' (13.34a} refer:s tO the whole history of
the city, but ..your children· indic;nes the speaker's contemporaries. Thus t he
adverb rroociK15 signifies the sptaker's repeated appeals ln jerusalem, not all
prophetic appeals through the ages. The •P<"ker aligns himself, however,
with t he prophecs reiected by Jeru~alem and ex,peas his own rejection. 7.s
The prophetic threat abour che forsaken house (13.3Sal, referring to rhe
destruction of jerusalem~ was tn Hoffmann's view probably suggested by
rhe general mood of the time; 'on the conuary, the manner of speech bas its
basis in tbc rejection which the .speaker. jesus, experienced'. 76 Furthermore~
'You wiU not sec me ...' does not refer to the withdrawal of Wisdom, but
- b«au5C it t:.tkcs up the 6t$t person a.S in 13.34b - tO the rejection of the
speaker, specifically, the de~th of Jesus: 'The saying is dir«:ted against the city
in which Jesus was pu1 on triaJ.•n In Jesus• absence, the Q group took up his
proclamation, but understood the im ermediate period as oriented specifically
towards the coming of jesus t be Son of man.'1
Fina11y, Hoffmann argued that an eschatological interpretation of Ps.
117.26 LXX may be deduced from ocher references to the 'Coming One' in Q
(Q 7.18-23; Mt. 3.11 • Ql, where the expression is a description for the Son
of man idencined with je-<us. Q 13.34-35 chus looks ahead to a time when
the Son of man will be revealed (Lk. 17.30 = Q; cf. 1 En. 62.5-6).
8a)C,/$rtUls Kon{tonl4tion, p. 362.

72. Hoffmann, Studien~ p. 113 (author's ttanslation).
73. So ~lso Manson. $dying~. p. 127.
7<4. Hoffmann, Studkn, pp. 1 7~74; cf. Robinson, 'The Sequence of Q'. p. 24<4, wbo
e:Jtplaio$ the ten$e$ diHe:rendy :and rakes Q 13..34 (the dit«:t ~uti o( Q 11.49-51) a.s a
saying o( Wifd ort~.
75. Hoffmann, StHdien, pp. 1 7~74.
76. Hoffmann, Studkn, p. t7$; ef. Hofrmann, 'Redtlecion of Q'. p. 191.
17. lioffmann, Studim , pp. 17&-80i citation from p. 180.
18. Hoffmann, Studkn, p. 178.
79. Hoffina~ Studim, p. 178.
42 Post-Mortem Vindie4tion of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Therefore, on the buis of dti.t pualld and tht: wording of the saying icsdf. in which
(the blessing) c:an only be spoken to the one who judge$ Jeruulc:m, the taying looks
ahead to the greeting of the Son of man who comes as tbt' judgt- who will condemn
jerusalem. At dut time, they will and mu.!lt rec:ogn.iu and acknowledge je:~i\1$ a$ che
Son of man. But it will be too l:ne (or their redempcion."'
Hoffmann thus reached the s;~me conclusion as Steck, that the speaker
announcing the destruction of Jerusalem {13.3Sa) also foresaw its final
and irreversible eschatOlogical condemnation (13-3Sb)." ln his most recent
work. Hoffmann associates Q's use of the deuteronomistic tradition and its
idcntifi<ation of jesus with the Son of man with the final redaction of Q.
In particular, he suggests that 'the proclamation of the imminent judgment
concerning this generation (cf. Q 11.49-S 1 with rbe redactional emphasis
in v. 51) turns into the proclamation of the eschatological 011 executor of
j udgment'" Jesus, who for I the redaction of Ql is the decisive representative
of God's end-time action'.•1
There arc a few difficulties with Hoffmann's treatment of the Jerusalem
Lament. First, his view that the Coming One's judgment will be :tn occasion
of condemnation for Jerusalem makes it d'ifficult to understand how Q
offered any further invitation tO rc::peotanc;c. Second., on Hoffmann's reading
lyou will nor see me ... • bec:omes a cryptic reference to Jesus' own rejection
and death, because Q aligns jesus' fare with rhe (more explicitly described
in 13.34a) rejection of the prophet$ sent to Jerusalem. On the other hand,
Tuckett is correct to note (in a similar connection) that 'Q chooses to present
its mes:sage in the form of the: preaching of jesus himself and one cannot hne:
a pre-Easter jesus referring to his own dearh in rhe past.'n Nevenheless,
it may be that a more satisfactory solution can be found, even one that
mkes Jesus' death inco account. Third, and mosr impOrtantly, Hoffmann's
link between the 'you will not sec me ... ' reference to Jesus' rejection and
dearh and the reference ro the Parousia is the 'Son of man confession'.u In
Hoffmann's view the Lament moves directly from jesus' death to his. return,
in order to emphasize the vindication of the rejecred one, but this relies on
the missing middle.step of an F..asteM>riented 'revtlarion' as rhe basis of jesus'
exaltation. The: theological presupposition that allows the identi6cacion of
the rejected one with the Coming One is a Son of man conftssion ti:Lat, as
seen above, presumes Easter faith.••
80. Steclc,lsrMl, p. 237.

8 J. Hoffm.ann, 'Rcda~on of Q', p. 192.
8l. Tw:k<tt, Q •nd th. Hi5tory, p. 313 n. 86.
83. Ho(fmJinr:t. 'Jetutverk\indi8Wl8'• pp. '"-'S; Studinc. pp. 187- 90.
8<. Hof&rumn, S~. pp. 139-42.
8S. Zdl<~ 'Entriid:-·, p. SH.
Q 13.34-35: Survey of Rmar<h 43
Q 13.35b: the Assumption of jesus?
Zeller crlticized several aspects of current interpretations of the jerusalem

Lament in his 1985 essay 'Entriickung zur Ankunft ah Menschen$0hn'. He
did nor rhiok rhe saying was originally a conrinuarion of Q 11.49-51," and
noted that because there is no par:~llel fo r Wisdom's 'personal return in t he
Meu iah or as the Son of man', many interpretations of the saying become
problematic." Thus be offered assumption as a better clarification of the
'you wil1 nor see me' clause, observing rhar ~•not seeing"" is a characrerisric
circ-umlocution for :Jssu.mption (e.g. 2 Kg.s 2.12}', and noting its proxjmity
to disappearance language, which is more conventional assumption termi-
nology." If Q 13.35b refers to the sp.,.ker's assumption, argued Zeller, there
is here 'an overlap with the Sophia-myth, insofar as one similarly seeks for
and does nor find Wisdom·. The main difference, however, is that jesus~
d isappearance is an act of God, whereas when Wisdom leaves humanity,
she depans to her rightful p)ace.u ln contrast w ith the reappearance of
Wisdom required by interpretatio ns s uch as Bultmann•s, the rc.appearan~
o f Jes-us does nor pose a problem in ZeUer's construal, for in both j ewish
and Christian literature 'assumption and eschatologic.al funcrion corrt·
spond co one another' .., In Zeller's view, the "Coming One• is }e5us, who
by his assumption is insraiJed as the Son of man; an analogy is found in
1 Enoch 70-71, where the assumed Encx:b is identified with 'that Son of
man' (1 En. 71.14). The 'seeing' of the Son of man (cf. Mk 13.26; 14.62;
Rev. 1.7~ wiU beta terrible seeing·again', which results in the acclamation
of blessing.,.
How does this interpretation contribute to the understanding of the
Jerusalem Lament as a whole? First, Zeller thought his reading clarifies the
omission of jesus' death from Q 13.34: assumption is typically understood
as an esca~ from death, so although Jesus' death is probably implied, it was
intcntionaUy .skipped over in the saying. The idea of assumption can be used
of historical persons twho die a sudden death or who vanish under undear
86. Zdler. 'E1.ntrUc;:kun.s•. p. St5 (~uthor's tttl)lbtio11).

87. Zcllc.r, ' Entruckung', p. 515. Acootding to Zelk.c. sc-holaahip bas mor~ or ~s
overlooked this pMibiliry, though offhand reference& can be found in W.G. XUmmeL.
V,heissung unJ Erfulltmg: Unkrsudtung zur esc.btJtologischen Verlumdigung ]eru
(ATANT, 6; Basel: Hc:inric;b Majec. lad c:dn. 1953), p. 71; E. Gti8et, D~ Nabmv.mtmg
}~u. (SBS, 61; Sruttgan: KathoJi!ICbe Bibtlwttk, 197lJ, p. llO. lntc:rtstingly~ Harnack
thought •skeptic$' c;ould arrive~ ~ •absurdities" such t$ the view chat,. given its Jade of paMion
ma~rial, •from Q wr can on.Jy eoncludt rhat jesus s uddenly VU'Iith.td in a mort or ltss
mysterious war• (Harnack, Saying~ of)eltlS, pp. 2JJ..j 4 n. 1).
U. Z dkl; 'EotrUckung', pp. SIS- 16.
89. Zelle; 'WtrGckung', pp. 516--17; tee G. H•ufe, 'Eouilek""3 uod '*'h.1tolog;,cht
Funktion im Spicjudcntum', ZRGG 13 (1961), pp. 10$-13.
90. Zdl<; 'Erurikkung', p. 517.
91. Zdkc. 'Entruckung'. p. 518. See also Zeller. 'Jesus, Q und die Zukw:Ut lsraels', io
44 Past-Mortem Vindication of jesus in th• Sayings Gospel Q
circumsrances. But it is denied that such persons met their end."' Second,
aS-sumption fits well with the dtuteronomistic:: understanding of histOry,
evident in Q !3.34's emphasis on the violent fa te of the prophet$: the Enochic
Animal A(JQcalypse conneCted attempts on Elijah's life and his assumption
(1 En. 89.51·52; cf I Kg,s 19.14; 2 Kgs 2.1·18)!2 Concerning the origin of
the saying, Zeller propo$«{ that while jesus himself may have understood
his own rejection deuteronomistica!Jy, and thus could have spoken Q 13.34-
35a during his fi nal days in Jerusalem, verse 35b is probably a post·E.a•rer
addition. The analogy Zeller found in I En. 71.14 led him to conclude that
' the followers of jesus 6rsr stressed the eschacologicaf significance of their
master, snatched away from them by his death, in this way. At least Q 13.35b
must be a Christian e:xpa1tsion. 193 Although the conclusion fits ve.ty well with
the rest of the saying, the reference to Jesus' assumption could only have
arisen 'after Easter'."*
Zeller argued t hat the language of 'Easter' is appropriate, even chou.gh rhe
Q tradent.s did not expr~ss their conviction that God had vindicated Jesus
in terms of 'resurrec-tion!~ because they did take bis proclamation again to
lsraei.'S He a lso observed that a lthough 'resurreccion' and •assumption' are
religion.sgescbicht/iche different expreS$ions of a hope in the overcoming
of death. they do cend ro converge espec-ially in instances of po.c;t•tnortem
assumption." Yet Zeller thought that Q 13.34 ·35 bypassed the death of
Jesus by focus-ing on his 'assumption', and thus does not offer a dir«:t
answer to the problem of Jesus' death. He did point out rhat assumption
and resurrection differ sig_nificandy in relation ro escha.rofogical function:
' Resurrection however is not dearly connected w ith a future eschatological
fu nction; it was not even originally coupled with the Son of man expectation.
Something more like as!iumption probably pred<tt~d it ..,. Ultimately, Zeller
concluded, assumption corrects the problem of a historical mission prema·
turcly ended by death and standing in need of completion.
A. Lindemann (ed.)~ T~ Sayings Sour~~ Q and the H•'s.tOfiCdl jtSu$, pp. J.Sl~9 (J$7-S8):
'1 may p.~.raphrase: "'Thus you will «nainly oo' $oCe me any more"' - the death of Jesus,
concea.~d 21 an 2$SUtnption, ~s :a fact for the Q-people- "'thus you will ceminly have to
.acknowledge me as the returning one•. The annou~emcnt of disastt:r thus was in no way
ttluiviud by ~ns of tbe "'unril" d~I.J$t· (JiiJ!hor'f; mndarion).
92. Zdler, 'Entrik.ku.ng', p. S18.
93. ZeJJer. 'E:nttOclcung•, p. 519.
94. Ze!Jer devoted most of this essay to solving interpretative problems ol Q 11.29·
32, the 'Sign o( Jonah' S3ying (Ztll«, ' Entrlkktmg", pp. 519-27): the '!lign of j on3h' i$ 3
realistic_ futu:rt ~Sign. consisting in 1h.e Son o( mao himself, one which signik:J legitil'l:l.1tion
for jn~.H and judgmmt for •chis evil gt'ocration' (pp. 52.0--21).
95. Here ZtiLer is &imil3t co TOdt, Son of M4n, p. 2SO.
96. Ztlle11'BntrUekuog•, p. S28.
97. U llec, 'EnuUckung', p. S29.
98. Steck~ tsra~l; Uhrmann, R.~d4ltion~ s« also Jacobson, Pint Gospel~ and
Q 13.34-35: Survey of Research 45
Q 13.34-35 and the Sequmu of Q, Again

ln his 1996 essay 'Building Blocks in the Social History of Q', Robinson took
issue with Mack's trcatnv:nt of three key deuteronomistic texts iQ 6.23c;
11.49-51; 13.34-35), which e<trlier were offered by Sceck as evidence fo r tbe
deuteronornistic view in primitive Christianity) and which we.re a lso funda ..
mental in Dieter LUhrmann's idendfication of a deuteronomistic redaction in
Q.n According ro Robinson~ the 'basic documentation for defining Q' [i.e.,
the second(lry stratum in the composition of Q] as Oe:uteronomistie is ...
eliminated by Mack' when he assigns twO of these rexcs (Q 6.23c and 13.34·
35) to the third stratum." For Mack separated, o n chronological grounds,
13.34-35 from 11.49-51: 'the people of Q used the myth of wisdom's envoys
ro express the horror of the war (Q 11.49-51], then che myth of wisdom's
quest for a home to express sorrow in its ahermath (Q 13.34-35J•,iOO
Robinson himself considers rhat rhe rwo sayings or-iginally formed a unit:
they form •one of the be:ner instances- in Q o f <1 continuous train of rhoughr,
rathe.r chan of disconnec.re.d sayings' .101Thus, Luke's pfacernenl of the t.amenr
is redactional: he has moved che saying our of a context it would nor fir {the
meat in the Pharisee's house, lk. 11..17, 53) tO tbe nar-r;tcive tr;tvelogue in
ch. 13 (sec Lk. 13.22, 31-33). 102 Bur for evidence that Matthew's placement
follows the Q order, Robinson goes back ro 2 Chron. 24.19-23, a 'classic
text' for the deureronomistic view and t he text behind bofh Q 11.49-51 ;.1nd
13.34-35.101 That text describes che murder of the propher Zechariah ! LXX:
Auri<Js), who was sconed in the temple; Robinson notes sevcr.tl parallels
berween 2 Chton. 24.19-23 and the rwo Q s:a)·ings.' 04 lrl. Robirl50Jl'S view,
Matthew apparently missed the allusions to 2 Chronicles, and identified
Zechariah in Q ll.S l with the son of Barachiah (Ze.ch. l.1 ). U Matthew
missed this conncctiont 'one cannor then :Jssume he secondarily broughc
together the two parts of the section dependent on 2 Chron. 24.19-2.3 ... ,
Kloppenborg. fomuJtion.
99. Robimoo. 'Building 81oc.ks', p. 100; 5«- M~ck, Lou Gospel, pp. 83, 93, 98.
100. Mack, Lost Cosptl, p. 175. A post-war seaing for the 6:n.tl rcdactton of Q,
including Q 13.34· 35, has also b«n argued by M. Myilykoskit 'The Social History of Q
at1d thejewi$h W'a r', in R. Uro (ed.), Symbols 1md Strato, pp. 146-99 {197-99).
101. Robinson, 'Building Blocks', p. 102.
102. RobirUOn, 'Building Block$', pp. J0.)...04. ln f:u:.t, sintt: Robinson believes Luke
bas also rc..()rdered the Woes, the Lukao rcdac.tH>n is responsible.for tbe two halves of what
be ealb the ' Wisdom collection' (that is, Q ll.49-.Sl • 13.34-35) occurring in L1.1kc after
rdcrene<s ro murd=d prophcts (Lk. 1t.47-48JQ] and 13.31-ll lLkSJ).
10.). Robinson, 'BuiJdi.ng BlQ.cb', pp. 104-06. Ste a l$0 Robift$0n, 'Sequence of Q',
1'1'· 255- 59.
104. ln ordtr to apl2in dK> non-septuagintal tumc. Zechariah. Robinson suggests
dlat ae-gcric.al work irJ the Q red.actioo worked from otha uxrual tndirioos tha.n jus-t
the Septuagint. and be dtes Q 7.27 as an example of tht: same phenomenon. Robinson.
'lluikling Block.', p. 106.
105. Robinsont 'Buikting Blocks', p. 106.
46 Po$t-Mortem Vindicalion of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
if they had in fact been separated in Q. Matthew here has simply followed
the Q ordec. ~ 105
While Robinson's argument for the allusions to 2 Chronidt$ in the tv.·o Q
sayings is compelling, his conclusion does nor follow dlrecdy from the evidence
he assembles. For even ap3rt from rhe supposed relationship to 2 ChtonH:les.
the Wisdom saying and rhe- jerusalem Lament have enough features in
common co suggest to Matthew a secondary joining. The origina1lty of the
Matthaean order would have to be established on othor grounds."'
Implications
This survey has uncovered several fundamental issues whose closer aoalysis
wiU be imp<>nant t O an underuanding of jesus• posr~mortem vindication
in Q. These include the origin of the Jerusalem Lament, especially v. 3Sb,
the saying's position in Q, and its relationship to its literacy and theological
contexts in Q. The most importam is-sues, however, concern Zeller's insight
th~t Q 13.35b refers to jesus' assumption as correlated to his return ~s the
Son of man. Given the dlffi<;ulties scholars have had in making sense of ''·
35b - for insranc~ note the attemptS to align this verse to the Wisdom myth
- a reference to the assumption of jesus makes the best sense of the disap-
pearance-reappearance prediction.
A few scholars have taken up Zeller's observation that Q i3.3Sb refers
tO Jesus' assurnption. 10~ John Noll-and, for instance, thinks that Zeller was
' probably right to appeal to Jewish traditions of figures translated to heaven
in pn!'paration for a. future role ... Jesus will bt: sn~tched away (through death
in his case) to heaven until it is time for his eschatological role.H!!s Risco Uro
wrote that 'such parallels fas Zeller suggests! may be helpful fo r the under-
standing of what kind of exaltation traditions Q may presuppose.' 1~ Uro
also thinks that Jesus' withdrawal in Q 13.35b has affinities with the 'absent
lord' theology evident in the Markan empty tomb narrative {16.1·8}, an idea
°
that will be explored in this book. 11 Kloppenbotg likewise sees a connection
106. Stt' also Robinson, ·~qutntt o( Q', pp. 2SJ-SS , in which he revie:ws 20d
a5ilt$loe$ pre\·ious $Cbol~t$hip on the pla(e!Uent of the Lament in Q, and offers suggestjom
concerning cht rt:dactional history o( rhe Lat'Ot:nt togetbt:r with the whole Woes con:apltx.
107. Edwuds earlier enten..-ioed the p0$Sibility ·that either resummon or assumption
•Jro tO tbt: christologicaJ cognition Oil wtUch is rhc foundation of che Qcommunity', but did
no.r d;tri6y bow or on wlut basis bt c:otui.d ertd 'a.uumption' u ~o altern~~ti,.e viodicarjon
!ICCna.Cio (Sip ofJonah. p. 84 and n. 1St.
108. J- Nollaod, U.l • 9,21-IB,J< (WBC, JSB; D•llu, Wo..d, 1'93), p. 742.
109. Uro, 'Apog lypci~t Symbolism', p. lll n. 127.
110. R. Oro, 'J«s.u.s-lli.ke j11 yl6snousemus', in ]~f.IIIJ·Iiilt ..ust~ ltristi"~~JkOitlt
(H.binkJ, Yliopistopaioo, 1995), pp. 93-111 ( 110-11). An Eoglisb aanslariooohhls ""'Y
(' The jews Mo'f'tmrot and tbt: Resurrection' I wu prepaud for mt by Harutu Aalto, with
corttetioas by Riuo Uro.
111. 'To underttand Q ll.JSb on the an.logy of tbeK aSIW'Option texts wggest:s that
Q 13.34·35: Survey of Restarch 47
between anumption and jesus' eschacological function in ~suggesting that

' this accounts for the fact that Q accords jesus' death no special salvilic
s-ignificance, but jumps immediately ro jesus' return as the Son of man'. 111
On a number of points furt~er efforts with assumption in Q will be: fruitful.
One point has to do with the purpose ZeJier suggested for assumption in Q .
ln Ztller's view, resurrection compensates for t.he proble-m of martyrdom, bur
assumption has in mind the (eschatological) completion of the ministry, cut
short by untimdy death, of a righteous person now exalted. Thus, argued
Zeller, assumpdon in Q 13.35 ( I) explains Jesus' exaltation, which (Zeller
clailned) the resurrection motif was unable to do, and (2) legitimates the
continuation of jesus' mission jn his absence.•u But as shown in the previous
chapter, Q 13.34·35, read with 11.49·5land the polemic against 'this gener-
ation', hines deuteronomistica1ly at je$us• rejection and death. Thus jes-us'
death as a prophet and his exaltation through. assumption come together in
Q 13.34-35. Zeller argued that the Lament bypasses a specific reference to
jesus' death., because assumprjon was usually considered to be a divine rescue
from death. Is Zeller correct? If not, tht-n what is the re-lationship betw«n
the Lamenr•s focus on the rejection of jesus and irs interest in assumption/
exaltation and Parousia? The following chapter, a survey of assumption in
Gracco-Roman and jewish and Christian literature, will explore in pan
whe-ther assumption can be used as an expression of divine intervention on
bc:half of people whose death was known- and thus whether it is appropriate
to see in Q 13.34· 35 a strategy of post-mQrt..,. vindication.
Zeller's essay also raises agaj n the problem of Q and resurrection, or at
least 'Easter'. Zeller would not say that Q developed in isolation from circles
that knew of the appearance traditions (as in 1 Cor. 15.3·7): 'the b..sis in
the text for speculations such as these is quite slender' .m He did imply,
because ' twelve' is used in Q 22.30, that the Q group may have known the
appearance traditions (in which Peter and the Twelve 6gure prominently), 114
and suggested thar the use of assumption language in Q t3.3Sb could only
have ari,cn 'afttr Eutcr'.us However, if Q (in its final form) bears witness
to a belief in Jesus' pos-t-mortem rescue, vindication and exaltation, rhjs does
not require that Q presupposed a rtsurreaion kerygma.
On the contrary, it seems that Q's literary (and theological) interests lay
e1sewhere. It must be stressed that what convictions the group had about
Jesus· vindication c.ome to literary expression in terms of assumption,
the Q propk may b~ve r~ardcd Jesus' death all the death of a just man or a prophet whom
God bad usu.mtd, ptnding some furutt ttdu1ologkal function' (Kioppcnborg, Eu4wting
Q, p. 378; d . Hunado. L«d I~su1 Clwilt, pp. 236-Jn. See also Kirk, CQmposition, pp.
31 4-IS.
112. Zeller, 'Enulkkung•, pp. 528- 29.
113. ZeUer, ':Entri.i<:kung\ p• .Sl8.
114. Zel~r, 'Eotrlklwng•, p. 528.
tt$. Zeller, 'Entri.iekung.. p • .S19.
48 Post-Mort€m VindicatU>n of jesus in tht Sayings Gospel Q
not resurrc:<.:tlon. Thus an an~a to bt explored is che connection between

assumption and Q's view of jtsus' ongoing presence or existence. Cenainly,
if Q 13.34-35, or a1 least v. 35b, came into the document at a late stage in its
composi!ionaJ history, it may be thar the dea1h of Jesus (or his post-monem
vindication or exaltation) was not a pres.sing problem for th~ Q community
from its beginning. A late redactional addition can signal a fundamental shift
- or ~chaps meuly a compos1tionally later ex-pression of an earlier view.
Either way, an insight into this liccrary strategy of vindication can elucidate
other aspects of the Sayings Gospel Q.
Chapter 3
AsSUMPTION IN ANTIQUITY
Tht- idea of human ~iogs journeying &om earth to otherworldly realms

was pracrically ubiquitous in the ancient world, and as a result has been the:
subject of great scholarly interest. t According to Alan Segal, rwo rypes of
transmundane journey were described in the Hellenistic world, anabasis and
katabasis, each a forma l transformation of the other. ln the first an eanhly
person r:ravc1s to heaven, and in the second, a hc:-avenly figu~;e descends tO
earth.1 In eithe-r case the purpose, generally, is a mediation of some kind.J
Many cypes of heavenly journey may be described under the heading of
anabasis, or otscent., and thC$e must be carefully djstinguisbed. One panicu·
larly helpful attempt to categorize the different rypes of ascent is found in
~rhard Lohfink's study of the Lukan ascension na.rr;~tivcs~ Die Himmelfahrt
]esu (1971).•
What Lohfink and others call the 'heavenly journey' ('Himmdsreise' or
' Himmelfahrt') was clearly differentiated in the ancient literary sources,
which describe both temporary heavenly journeys (these may be designated
as •ascents') and ones which conduded t he individual's earthly life. Some
temporary journeys or ascenrs are depicted as ecstatic or mys6cal experi-
ences, since the individual's soul or spirit makes the journey, or else it takes
1. See W. Bousset, 'Die Hir:nmehreise dec Setle', ARW 4 U9Cll. pp. 136--69,
228- 73; G. Lobfink. 0~ Hi.mmel(3hN )esu: Unkrst4h~~~tgen V~ den HJmtMl{ahrtJ· .,nJ
&hobungst~.xun bei LuJtos (SANT, 26; Munich: J<oseJ, 1971Ji A. Schmin, £ntriidtNnK
- Au{114h~ - Hitumel{ahrl; Unttrsucbu,gcn t:Jt einem Vor~UIIungsbercid1 im Alun
TNtamnd ifzB, 10; Stuag.1n: J<arholisdlts Bibelwerk, ZndOOn, 1976); A.F. Stgal, 'H~vcnl)·
.4-~t in HeiJeni.sticjt.Jdaistn, Early Qu·~tiani.ty and «heit F..nvUOOltl(:ru:', ANAW23.2 (1980),
pp. 1333-94; M. Ot:an·Otting, HNttenly joumeys: A SJ,Jy of tM Moa( in f-ltl!nlistic
}<WishLi""•'"" Oudenrwn und Umw.l~ 8: Fnnlciutt; New YOlk: Petct Lang, 1984); M.
Himmcl£ar-b, Ascent to Htavm in jewish and Christi4.n ApocolypSttS (Oxford; New Yorlc:
Oxford University Ptes:s, 1993}. Brief $u.tVeys ouy ~bo be found in J.D. Taboc. Tbinf$
Um~tkrable: Paul's Auertt to ll~ven in Its Gr~ ·R.Offlan. jwdAA:. attd Early ChriuUut
Contats (Srud.its in judaism; l..anlwn, MD: Uni\'eniry Press of Amui.ea, 1986J; A. W. Zwiep,
T1H Asun1km oft~ Mnfiah in Lu)usn Christology (NovTSup, 87; ltidcn: Brill, 1997).
2. Stg;ol, 'H.. vtnlr Alt..,,.,
pp. 1337-40.
3. C£. O.J , Halperin. 'Ascension oc lov.uion: lmplkatiom of the Heavenly JouulC'y
in Ancient judaism'. R.t/18 (1988•, pp. 47-67.
4. loblink, Himmelf.:Jhrt, pp. 32-79.
50 Post-Mortem VindiciJtion of jesus in tile Sayings Gospel Q
place in the. context of a d.ream.J Other as.centS were thought of as bodily

experiences.' When Paul describes an ascent (probably his own) tO bcaven,. he
professes ignorance of the mode of the journey (2 Cor. 12.2-3), but empha-
sizes that it happened as a n act of divine not human iniciative.7
Other heavenly journeys concluded the ea n hly life of the individual. This
work is particularly concerned with 'assumption' (Lohfink: 'EntrUcku.n g'),
rhe 6nalt bodily removal of a human person from earth into heaven, usually
while still alive.• As will be seen below, assumption was described in ster~
typical language, and was stereOtypicaUy associated with certain idtas, so
that a$$umption nartar.ives were fo rmally distinctive. Yet rhe idea and its
literary expressions had oome 6exibility. While assumption normally would
signal the end of a human being's eanhly life, some sources use assumption
language to des,ribe the removal from earth to hca ven of a heavenly figure
at (or as) the conclusion of an appearance/ or the sudden 'translation' of a
human being from one place to another (as in Acts 8.39). Luke-ACtS and Rev.
1!.7-13 describe the assumption of individuals who died but experienced
resurrection. 1() There was also some flexibiliry, it will be seen, on whether
assumption always necessarily signi6ed an escape from death. Both Loh6nk
and A.W. Zwiep observed that •assumption~ i$ not ruled out in Gracco-Roman
sources by the death of the individual, but concluded the opposite for Jewish
texts..11 In contrast, this $UTVcy will conclude that the literary evidence requires
5. Lohfinl<, H""""lf•hn, pp. 32-34.

6. S.., e.g., T.llbf: (B) 7. 19-S.J.
7. Manh.a Him.melfarb found this ro ~ ch.auc,erisric of mo•r of the .as«nl$
dcsailx-d in jewish and Christian litc:rarure: M. H.immdfarb, '1"he Pracrice of Atc:ent in
rbe- Ancient Med it~":trancao Wotid', in j ,J. Collins a:od M. fishba~ (C'ds.). D"th. &s~asy,
llnd Oth~ Worldly )ou~ (Albany, NY: St:ate Univmiry of New York Preu, 1995). pp.
121-37 (128-33). ~iptions of teduUquet for iniri:acins #$Cent .are not wknown ~
Hi'frltft.el{ahrt, p. l3, cites the so-called ' Mith.ru Liturgy' , P.Puis 574) but appnt ootr rardy
in ancient soura:.t; .aeco«fing to Hi.m.mel£arb the actions of chc individual before a.a a.$C.C:Jlt
do nor initiate it, but only pre~re the individual ro receive the experience (Himmel&rb,
'Pracritt of Ascent', pp. 130-32t.
8. l.ohMk, Himm<I(.Jn-t, pp. J2-SO (on GrO«»-Rom;oa w =l, SS-70 (onJtwi<b).
In hit study of the: Lukan aS«-Il$1on narratives. A.W. Zwi~:p uses the term "raprure-pr~~~
varion' wbk h righdy conttOre$ the tdw of suddenness .and bles.sing intrinsic: tO amuoptioo
(Zwiep, Asansiofl').
9. t.o~finl<, H;m,.../(aifft, pp. 70..72.
10. Lohfink, Htmm~lfalm, p. S9: 'it is most norewonhy t~ t the combi.nJtion of the
id~$ o f resurtecrion and a$$Umprion obviowly offered no di~l ty to Jewish thought'.
11. "The .separation bmvem ck.ub and .wumprion it moch sharpet {in jf:wish lirt.tafUtf:l
than in cla$$icaJ literarure. Whoever is assumed hat nor tu~ ddth. Al'd rhe opposite al.o
holds: wbotv~r ao;ruallydied ~oooc have hem as.s:u.med' (lohfink, Hiln11U'I(ahrt, p. 74; S« :a.Jso
Zwiep, As=ui<>n, p. 36 •nd n.!). S.. •i>o Schm;tt, F.nJri<ci<.=g- A•{n.bm< - Himm<I{Mrl,
p. 2;Scbm;tt, 'Zum n..ma "Enttikkung" im Alten T<Soam<ru', BZ 26 (1982), pp. 34-49 (J-4).
For a different view ste E. Bic:kennann, 'Da5leeu Grab', ZNW 2.l (1.924), pp. 281 ..92: tpt
P. Hoffmo;ann («t.). Zur fWNin.tammtUchm 0/ml~fcnmg J.'Oflf k .AM!er.stelnmg ]eGM (Wcge
der Fonc:hung. $12; D.anns-tadt: W"t~osc,:baftlidtc Boc-bgesd.bchaft. 1988), pp. 271-84.
Bid:t.rmann argutd that in &ODlC instances tbe death of .a pet$0a Wll$ no impedi.mem co a beJief
in their assu.mprioo ('Das fet:te Grab'. p. 290); his principaJ example is Mk 16.1..8.
Assumption in Antiquity Sl
more flexibility on this poin~ and that sufficient warrant exists in bmh Graeco-
Roman and J<wi•h sources for thinking that assumption language in Q 13.35
can be an answer t'O the problem of jesus' post-mortem vindication.
To be distinguished from assumption is the •as~ent of the soul' (Loh..fink:
'Aufnahme der Seele'), according to which the soul asc.ends o ut of the body
at the time of death, whether because of itS own immortality, u or with the
help of an int~ediary. 13 Loh.6 nk noced that in jewish literature this idea bas
its own narrative form. 14 Normally, 'the ascent of the soul' was consider~d
a reward for a virtuous life, and as such was a spiritua1i.zed 'assumption'
reserved for special cases. 11 This idea, as will be seen below, is at the root of
a tradition in Hellenistic consolation literature which applied certain terms
often associated with assumption to people who had died early but who we-re
not believed to have been taken bodily imo the divine realm."
T ho ugh t hey both are 'embodied' forms of post-mortem existence,
assumption and resurrection are also distinct from one another, both
formally and rerminologically, in tht ancient sources. George Nickcl$burg
defines resurrection as cthe eschatologit$1~ct by which God the judge raises
the d~.ad in order ro recompense rhtm for their deeds', in that 'resurrection
and its equjvalents function variously as recompense for the lack of divine
justice in chis world, as r~ward and punishment for one's deeds., o r, in
special cases, to exalt and glorify che pe-rsecuted leaders of the community' ."
Nickclsburg has shown thar early Jewish thought, though far from consis~t
12. Loh6nk cite$ ctG 2. 3398 .. W. Peek. Criu.bischt- Grabg~dichu: Grilchjsch und
C>-etd.seh (Schriftcn und QucUm dcr Altm Welt, 7; Berlin: Akademie-Vc:rlag. 1960). no.
391. 'Ibis epitaph read' in part: 'My soul Bees (rom my bean i-nro the ether Bke ,_ breu.e ...
:tnd u 1 dt:tw neat tbt hOUk of thr blt'$.std gods ~oeivcs me, snd 1 bt,hold in the bt"avenly
dwdllngs the I~ of Dawn ..: <'iAJX'l f1 it 1Cpo:6iqs 6po"' ts oi&tpov tiQAos cxVpn ... ~r:al ~t
au:;..,IJOkO:pt.)v ~eaTixu ~OS' &oaov iiwTa, oOpaviots n ~otat ~f II'(&) +cios' Hptytvt:ins,
JL 4,6). Stt Bow.sct, ·o~ HimmrJsreise der SttJe', p. 136.
IJ. See, for itu<an<o:, T. Abr. (A) 20.10·14; T. Abr. (B/14.6-8.
14. l.ohJinlc, Himmdfahtr, p. 53.
15. See P.G. Bolt,].,...· D<(«~to{Deoth, Pn....dingMo•k~ Emly Rud<n (SlmiMS,
12$; Cambridge: Cambridse Universiry Pt~ 2003J, p. 221, citing, e.s., Cicero, R'sp.
2.17.
16. According to Lob.6n.k, the idea and ~ry of ass.umprion were fundamcnt.tl to
emperor apOtheosis {t$peclally the funuaJ rite, the conuc:razio), tbough in fac:t the tOnS~·
~atio wa$ often rtint«prtced as an :l$(ent of the soul (Himmelfabrt, pp. J+-35, 49-50).
5u alw E. B.ickermaM, 'Die rOmisc:he Kaiscrapoc.heosc', ARW 27 (1929), pp. 1-31; rpc- A.
Wlot<>k (ed.~ RllmiJtr K4isn*>Je (Weee der FOt$Chuns. 372; D>nnmdo w,..n..clunlkht
Budtplltchait, 1978), pp. 82-121. For tbe view that tbt soul of the cmperot ascended and
wu del5~~ OvM::I, M~tam. l S.l24J..12H UuliU¥ Cac:Ur); Cas11ius Dio 56.42 (Al.I8U-iru.s>,
75.4--5 (Pettinut; ~todUn 4.2 (Septimus Severu\); see also &gal, ' Heavenly Ascent.. pp.
1348--49: S.G. ~rtn~ck, Art an.d CntmOII)' in lAir Arfliquily (Betkelt:y, Ck University
of California Press, 1981 ), pp. JOl-OS; and S.. R.F. Prioe. ' From Noble F'unenl$ ro Divinr
Cult~ The C:omccration of Roman Emperors', inS. Price 2nd D. CaMadint: (cds.), Aitu.2ls
of Ao')ltdty: P~ and Cnmtemial in TradiriCmlll Soc.id~SlP~$t- and Ptt$ent Publication&;
Ounbri.Jseo Cambridg,:. Univeniry h"s, 1987~ pp. 56-105 (76).
I?, G.W.f. Ndd:sbw:g. •Res-urrec:t:ioru Early Judaj$0'1 .and Chri.s1i~n ity', ABD 5, pp.
68....91 (684).
52 Post-Momm Vindi<~~tio• of ftsus in the Sayings Gospel Q
in jr:s understanding of resurrection, tended to associate a future c:schato-

logical resunecrion with the vindication of the righreous. 11 Somedmes that
vindication is individual, even when it occurs in the context of a universal
judgment, but resurrection itself was a corporate idea. 11 In certain texts,
the precise f3te of the body is not always dearly understood in terms of its
cecooscitudon and/or revivi6.carion.20
In Q, thi• book will argue, !he problem of Jesus' posr-mottem vindication is
given a literary answer with the language and associated ideas of assumption,
an answer different from those provided by resurrection rheology in mher
texts. The differences between assumption and resurrection, as tbey apply
to the case of jesus, may be spelled o ut in tentative fashion htre, though this
is to anticip.art somewhat the. resulrs of this chapter. Assumption and resur-
rection have different views of the fare of tbe body and differenr lheological
associations. Assumptjon involves the disappearance of rhe body. pre- or
post•mortem, although (as argued below) the language of assu.mprion was
also used euphemistically for someone: who had died.21 Resurrection involves
an appearance of rhe resurr=d person, rather tbon the disappearance of
the body, whether or not the body is rhought of as beiog reconstituted or
revived.11 Assumption, as will be scc::n, is associatc:d typicaHy with divine
favour and starus elevation, and consistendy in Jewish thought with special
eschatological functi<)n. With resurrtction. such ideas- particularly exaltation
- are sometimes present, but often with special exegetical rariona1e.2J Luke
l8. G.W.£. N"tektlsburg. RC'$Urreajon. Immomlity4tld Eserrwl Li/e in lnt~

jud4ism (H:a.rvatd Theologkal -Swdies, 26; Cambridge, MA: Harv:trd Univtrsity Pte$$,
1972).
19. Nicke:lsbut g. Re$urTtaion, lmmortaliry 12nd Et<Crn41 Life. pp. 94--95. 131-43.
H.C.C. Cavallin found that one con\i.stC'n t anrbtopological idea i.n Jrwish resurr('crion
thought was t h.at 'the pctsonality .survives death in char which constitutes rbr personal
idrmicy': Cavallin, Life After ~ath: Pawl's Atgttmmt for tint Rnuffcction ()f 1~ Df!Qd in
t Cor 1$. Part I: An E.nqu.e'ry int() t~ )ewUh 6ackgrolmd (Conal<ff. 7/1; Lund: Gl~cup,
1974), p. 211.
20. Compare, (or iru;rance. tnn. 12.2·3 (which eould s~a~~ astr.1l irnm<u:u.Uty) and
l f.noch 103 (which suggests a resurrection of the soul) with 2 Mace. 7 (which SUggt$t $
physK-al rrs.u.rrec.tion); see Cavallin, Life Aft.n Dur.h, pp. 197-99. Many have argu~
thac simil.uly d isp3t:~ te views of bodily fate ll'lay be found in materials on the rtsw'recrioo
of Jesus: see, for examplr., Robinso~ 'JC'$.us - From Easttr', pp. 7-17; A.Y. CoiJins, iln
Beginning of lbe G<Hpt'l: Probittg~ of Mark In Cofll.at fMinnr.1 p<>li.s: Fortrt'$~ 1992), pp.
lll-27, 14}-46.
21 . ~ below on t~ Righteous Ooe in Wi•. 2,....$ and ics $imibrlt ies ro Heltcnistie
r;onsola tton lit~.n ru.r~.Jn &Ueb USt$ the body does oot d.isappcar. bur &t:lad~rd :.uumpti<m
terminology - paniculariy rsprure (0pncl(w -a.nd cognateS) or uking up (iwa).a.~YC.))
language - dOC5 OQ;W'.
22. Srt' 1 Cot. 1 5.5..8 and ~ a pp<-::tt:I.D« oa.ttatiYet in ~ftlwA·, l uke1 and j ohl), •nd
G01. Pet. 10. to Mi.rk 16.1 ~8. the disappear3n« of j esus' body is inccrptctc::d by Mark a.s
resulting from tbt' tC'Sutrcccion.
23. Compa"• (ot ins~noe, Rom. 1.3·4 (which associates }c:$us' rcsu.rrec;rlon with bis
cxahation ss Son of God) with Rom. 8.34 and Acts 2.31·36 (which add meex" licit r.uion:tlt
o( session or eruhtonemmt tbeoklgy, Nsed on h31m 2). Nickelsburg u)'J tha( die res.ur·
reetion 'f.acilitnes Jesus' exaharioo as lord and Judge' f'Re;sunoccion', p. 688).
Assumption in Antiquit)' 53
distinguished between re-surre<:tion and assumption, a pparently ch_ink.ing

rhar they had different functions in relation to jesus, though obviously nor
concluding that they are at odds with each ocher.~ These are good grounds
for maincaining a formal disrincrion between tbese rwo idcas.25
Assumption in Graeco-Roman Literature
This survey begins with a s ummary of Lohfink's observations concerning

terminology and motifs, 3nd takes 'he assumption of Romulus as a case
study, for its many variants display most of me typical ideas in the Greek
tradition. A special focus will be the instances of posc-monem assumption:
for there seems less hesitation in the Graeco-Ron\an tradition than in tht
jewish nadicion co apply the idea of assumption, normally a pre-mortem
caregory, ro people who had died.
1. Overview: Terminology. Motifs. Contemporary Views
Loh6nk noted several characteristics of assu_mption narratives in Graeco·

Roman lirerature:u
1. Assumption narratjves tend to focus not on the journey itself, but on its
origin and destination: 'The person in questjon is taken away from the
world of humaM and is assumed to the gods.'"
2. An assumption is 3.lways narrated from t he perspeCtive of an earthly
observer,1 ' so that bodily disappearance is practically a sine qua non for
assumption.~
24. See Lob.6nk, Himtml(aJm, p. 59; Zwic~ Asc.msioft, pp. 34-35.

2S. Some oommmtators d isoem :a blurring of g,tegorles brtw<en rcsurr«tioo and
a.uumption, in both Christian and jcwi'\h J>Ourcts, e.g.., ~vaUin, f..J/~ Afur Dl.ath, pp.
2.()$..()6, who appr-.tl'l to haTe [a mind not rcJurrectioo p~r se but post·mortem prescrvtri<>o
in a mort" gena-al sense. Cf. C.F. £vans, Ruuffulitm 11M rh~ Nnu Ustmnmt (SST, 2112;
London: SCM, 1970), pp. 137-38; a180 J. Holleman, R~.twm~aion muJ PartxtJia; A Tr.:JdiJ;rr
Hisrori(;(J/ Study of P(IUrs &dtatology in 1 Corinthi411S 15 (Novi:Sup, 84; Ldden: Blill,
1996), pp. 14~57.
20. Loh6nk, Himmtl(.mt, pp. 37-41.
27. Lohfink, HimtMlfdbrt, p. 37 (author's translation; e:mpha.sis origina)).
U. F.xetpdons include Ovid't deuiptioo ol Romulus' auumption,. whk:b cmphasius
the duma in thtdivine rutm (Metam. 14.805·5 1; F~st. 2.41.S ~.S12), .11_nd Enoch's n2rration
of his own assumpti-on (1 £n. 87.3-4; 1 Eno<h 70-71; 3 En«b 6- 7).
29. l.oh.link observed chat this connection beC"Wt<tl'l :lSSUJl)ption and disappc:atanet w.as
maintained in dlffecmt culnues and time& ' with astonlsbing coruistenq' (Himmelf4hrt, p .
.SS). See <1lto A.S. Pnse, 'Some A$peas of lnvi$ibiBty•, Hli1'Vatd Studies in Claui<41 Ph#o/ogy
53 (19-42), pp. 1· 36 (1:!-lti.
54 Post-Mortem Vindication of }es11s in the Say;ngs G<»pel Q
3. This carrhly perspective means that the scene and the wirnesses (eirher
human or otherwise) of a.ssumption.s receive- attention in assumption
nanacives.JO
4. Assumption is a bodily removal, so assumption narratives emphasize
disappearance and assumption traditions do not coexist with grave tradi-
tions.l1
5. A$.Sumption requires an unusual divine intervention. which is expre58ed
through either the use of the passive voice or the explicit naming of rhe
god.32
6. In Graeco-Roman literaru.re assumption is an exclusive process, reponed
only of special individuals.Jl
One detail may be added to Loh.fink's sixth observation. Assumption appar·

cody rould be seen as the occasion either of apotheosis or of the return of a
divine bt-ing to the djvine. re.alm.J.4 According to Charles Talbert, assumption
occurs frequently in literature about heroes or immortals, who according to
legend were originally mortal but were transformed at the end of rbeic careu.,
usually through assumption., so that they received the same honours a$ the
eternal deities. SJ •Assumpt~on at the conclusion of a person's life showed that
in reality they were not human, but divine."36 The literature auats many
examples of persons who contrived to effect rheir own bodily disappearance
in order to ensure their post-mortem venuation as gods.»
Lohhnk observed that 'disapptarance' language was the- most common
way ro describe an assumption (0¢o:vl~c..l, citovl~opcn, &~vr\s yl~a1,
and a~II'TO> yi)'liOIJQI), A second group of verbs includes 'raprure' language:
aplr~O> ('the oldest Gre«k t<ITTI for assumption') and illlo.p~ratw, ~up~ratw,
and owaptra~w. Less frequent is 'translation' language (~•6i0Tl]~o)." In his
re«-nt study of the Lukan ascension narratives, A.W. Zwiep al$0 notes the
30. Lobfink, Himmelfolm, pp. 38-39-

31. See "'iiO$UIU'Utl, Vir. ApoU. 8.30 {i.n which the aurbor ootea the lack of atay grave~
d. Vit. ApoU. 8.l9 for a tradition about Apolloniw' assumption.
32- loblink. Himme/fab.,, p. ~.
33. loh.6nk:. Himmtlfllhnt pp. 40-41; see :aJso M.C. Parsons, The DspMrur~ of]ts.uJ
in Luke-Ads: The A.sunsi011 Narrarivu in Contut (JSNTSup. 21; Sbeffidd: JSOT Pres.s,
1987), pp. 136·38.
J.4. For Romufw' assumption as proof of ckification, ste Plut:ucb, R.orn. 27; as proof
of his divinity, .s.tt. Dion. Hal., Ant. rom. 2.56.2~ 6; 2.63.4.
JS. C.H. Talbert. "The Concept of Immortals in Meditert'&nem. Antiquity', ]BL 94
(19?5), pp. 419-36 (422-23\.
36. Lohfinl<, Himmtl{ob<t, p. 48.
37. Sec ~ l.amius, 1-66-68 (fmpcdoclcs) and Arris.o_ AMi>. 7.27-JIAI=nder).
Otbt:rs oonttivt<l to disapptu tt'mpot:arily in order to make their re:.ppe:aJ:anet Jetm like
a PQ$1·~1l:'lption epiphany: set for tQ(I)ple ~ Hist. 4.9$ (Zu:noOOJ). See abo
Peaset •Jnvlsi:bility', pp. 18-21 .
38. loblink, Himmd{alm, pp. 41 ....2.
Assumption in Antiquit)• ss
regularity of apo<heosis <enninology (especially iiC6£ta~c.>, 6<orro1ic.>, and 8101'
yiylqJac).l~
Lohfink also nored't besides apotheosis, severaJ other motifi and narrative
elements common in Graeco-Roman assumption stories.~ Some relate to the
environment of the ~ssumptioo (mountains and funeral pyres) or accompa·
nying phenomena (lightning, thunder, voices from heaven), while others deal
more direcdy with the means whereby the person is taken away (windstoons,
chariots, eagles, or clouds, which sometimes c:onvcy the person to heaven but
often serve to obscure the assumption from view). One fina l important motif
is confirmation: the assumption can be con6rmed either through an unsuc-
cessful search after the disappearance,41 or through a subsequent epiphany
(either of t he person who wa.s assumed or of some other heavenly figure).
Some contemporary sources display a negative view of aS-sumption.
Lucian of Samosata satirized the idea of funeral pyre assumption in de
Morte Peregrini rhe same way Seneca sar.iriz.ed emperor apotheosis in
Apolocyntotis." According to Plutarch, <he problem is that it is contrary oo
reason ro 'rascri~] divinity ro rhe mortal fearures in human nature. as well
as to the dh'ine' (Rom. 28.6); and it is 'contrary to nature' to •tsendJ the
bodi.. of good men wid! <heit souls to heaven' (Rom. 28.8). So Peter Bolt
sugges-ts that 'translation stories were a thing of the mythological past based
upon a p$y<hology <ha< had been largely supetSeded' .'' Bol< also a<gues <nat
because assumption is an escape from durh in early sources such as Homer,
po6t-assumpcion immortaliry was conceived of as bodily; but such a thing
would be im;redible for later authors holding Platonic views about the soul
and body.44 Thus there is a tendency among some authors to offer some kind
of spiritualizing account or rationalizing explanation of the assumption story
in question.•"
2. Two Representative Examples: Romulus and Xisoutbros
Lohfiok began with the assumption of Romulus, because it is described in

ma.ny sources.w. The earliest mentions of che assumption of Romulus arc:
found in Ennius (2nd c. BCE) and Cicero (106-43 tiCf.)." Mosr au<hors are
39. Zwiep. ~nskm, p. 39 and n. 1.

40. lob.6nlc, 1-firnttUI{ahrt, pp. 42-49.
41. So ;alw 8Kk«mJ~on. 'Du kert' Gtab', p. 289.
42. Lohlink, Himmdf.,., p. SO.
43. Bol~ '""'' o.{.., of Duth, p. U2.
4-4. Bolt,/""'' o.{tm of Dt41h, pp U>-el.
45. Lot.linlc, Hi.,..../{.,., p. 49.
46. Loh6nk, Himmel{t~hrt, pp. 32-34; see al.SoO Pcue, 'Invisibility', p. ts: 'Tht
<kiDeation of Romulus ... (ot"'D$ a vecy eypic2J cue:
47. Enniua, Ann. t.S.. SS; 1.106· 111; C i(;e£0, Rup. 1.16. ln cbe opinion or Otto
SktJtseh. 'Romuh.J$ apparendy wu not a god bcfo rt Ennius made b.im ooc': 0. Skutscb
(«1.), The A....U of Q. Ennius (Oxford, Oareodoo. 1985), p. 205. Citations from Enniw,
Amulks Mtda foliow Skutkb•s spd!ing and <numen.tion.
56 Post-Mortem Vindication of jest<• in lh• Saying• Gospel Q
skepdcal about the legendary r~ports, but as Lohfink righdy insisted, even
skeptic,af or satltical assumption reports US<e standard form and terminology,
a.lrhougb r~tionaliting or spiritualizing explanations are often given.•• The
Language used for the assumption of Romulus emphasi2es sudden disap-
pearance. Greek authors (Plutarch and Dionysius of Halicamassus) favour
04lavi~c..>. cl4>aufts ylyvo~cu, and C¢~o:uiOIJ0S'; and Ovid ust:s evan~uo.•'
Along similar lines, Plutarch says that no part of his body or his garments
could be seen (oon ~ipo; <.04>9n oc.O~cxTo; oVT' .k£1-¥avov io&ijTo; (Rom.
27.5); Livy repons that Romulus was no longer on r.he earrh ('nee deinde in
tertis Romulus fuit'), and that his duone was empty ( 1.16.1 -2). Assumption
o r translation language a lso occurs (c:Xvaptr<i:l;(l,) and lxvo:4lipw, passive;
iJ:£TaAAcioow; rapio; tollo; au{ero), whether for the assumption ir.self or for
Romulus' ascem into heave.n afcer his epiphany.so
Although the sources disagree as to the rime and place of the :1ssumption
of Romulus/ 1 mosr include unusual meteorological phenomena: an eclipse,
sudden thunder, lightning and rain, a cloud that hid the king ftom sight."
In most accounts people flee the scene, leaving room for rhe s uggestion that
Romulus was mwdered by the se.nawrs and his body taken away.H Ovid
says thls is fa lse_, and l)ionysius of Halicarnassus is inclined to believe the
more fabulo us version, because the heavenly ponents at Romulus' birth and
disappearance gi-ve it more credence.s• PJurarch also describes an unsuc_.
co<slul •e~tcb ( Rom. 27.71.
The rumour that RomuJus was murdered is squelched when a noted
citizen, j ulius Proculus, reports that he met Romulus after the disap·
pearanc:~ outside the city a nd relays a message from the lOng. 55 This julius
was an icreproachable (civt nl"ntrTOS) witness, according to Dionysius
o( Halicarnassus: •be would never ha'/e. told an untruth for his private:
advantage'.56 In a few sources, Julius says that he saw Romulus descend,
48. l.ohfink, Himm<l{ahrt, pp. ~9-SO.

49, Se-e Plutarch, Rom. 27-28, Num. 2.1-3, and Dion. Hal., Ant. rom. 2.56, 2.63;
Ovid, hut. 2.509.
SO. civopw6.tt.:~ (Oion. Hal, Ant. rom. 1.56.2; Plutarch, Rom. 27.7); ciw~ipw
(Pi uuarch~ Num. 2.3): utTo:MOoow (Plutarch. Rom. 1.7.S); r11pW (Livy, 1.16.2); Jollo
(Ennius, Ann. 1..541·55; Ovid, Mn4tr!. 8.814; Fast. 2.487; Cicero, R~sp. 1. 16); tN{no (Ovid,
M~t~~m. 8.824).
Sl. Compare Plutarch, Rom. 27.5·6; Num. 2.1-2; Dion. H:af.. Ant. rom. 2.56.1; Livr.
1.16.1.
SZ. CkC'ro, R~sp. J.l6; Livy, 1.16.1; Ovid, M~ttmt. 14.816-17; Fmt. 1.493-95; Dion.
H~J.. Ant. rom. 2.56, 2.63; Pl-uurch, Rom. 11·28; Num. 2.1-3.
$3. Llvy, 1.16.-4; Dioo. HaL, Ant. rom. 2.56.3----S; Plutarch, Rom. 27.5; Num. 2.2.
S<l. (.Wid,. F4Jt. 2.4.9]; Dion. H:al~ Ant. r()m. 2.$6.6.
SS. ln .Sjckermann's view, assumption aad epiphany never oe<ur togethl!'t in t M nme
narrative, since the l;mer is fomu.Uy :a proof of tdurttction, noc: assumption; thus ht :arsucd
that versions of the Romulus scory that oontain both his diaappeatance and his subsequent
epipha ny are conflarions of two independent o.ana.tivcs ('Das k:erc Crab', p. 189}.
56. Ant. rom. 2.63.3 (tnns. Caty,l.CL); Plu1:2reh, Rom. 28.1·J. in which julius .fWt.a.rs
an o.ath.
and then ascend after their conversation.S7 In tbe epiphany, Romulus is

dressed in full battle regalia and reveals that his name is Quirinus, and
thar he is returning to the gods.st The idea found in some source$, that the
assumption of Romulus was his return to the divine realm (and not his
apotheosis), appears co ha,•e originated with Ennius: ~Romulus in caelo cum
dis geojU~Iibus acuom degit.'5' The idea comes to expression in various ways.
Dionysius has Romulus say that his &.lttwv is taking him to the gods, now
that his mortal life has ended.60 Another view is found in Ovid: Jupiter makts
good on his promise that one of the twins would be exalted t O the divine
c~lm.41 So Gradivus dC$Cends in his chariot, and Romulus is caught up from
the-earth. On the way, his mortal body dissolves.n Ovid also des<:ribes rhe
delfication of Hersilia, wife of Romulus.0
Another illustrative ex.ample is the Hellenistic version of the Meso-potamian
flood tale. Berossos describes how [he hero, here called Xisouthros,~ is taken
away by the gods.
Wheo he uw tNt th~ boot had ruo ;gro,md On; certain mountain. Xisouth.ro~>got
out, with h.is wi.ft and daughter aod with tbt helmsman, and he kissed the: ground
and ded~ated an alur and s3Cri6ced to lht g;od$. Then he. together with chost who
h2d distmbarkc-d wirh him, di!o3ppcared 1ytll(o6a• ~nCr Ti>v i~clVTCo>v TOO nXolou
C:~a\11)). Tho!ioe who had rtmained on the boat and did not get out with Xi.southros
the.n disembarked a.nd scar<=h«< for hjm, c.Uing out for him by Nme; but XisouthrM
himsdl W3$ no looger seen by them {TO~P & ! ioou6pov o1.iTi:w IJiV eN TOtS' oU~e iTt
Ocp&iivat •. Tbe-o a voice came from up in tbt aU, commanding that they should honour
the gods. For X;30ulhros b.ad g<~nt 10 dweU with tht god:s on a«<u.nt oi hi$ piety; :and
hi$ wi(e and cbug)ner ~nd the hdmsm2Jl had shared in me same honour.«
Th~s narrative make$ u~ of motifs and language noted by Lohfink as charac-

teristic: a sudden disappearance, described us:ing O:~aVl\s ylyvoiJat (and also
the negated passive of Opciw); an unfruitful search for the missing person; a
ronfirmation ol the ~ssuroption; and subsequent praise of the gods and/or
veneration of the one. assumed."
$7. Livy, 1.16.6·7; Plutat<h, '"""'· 2.3.

$8. Stt Pluu.rch, Rom. 28.2; Dion. Hal., Ant. rom. 2.63.4; Cia-ro. R.up. 1.16; Livy,
1.16.3.
S9. Ann.l.110·11; alsoA""'·l.J06.()9.
60. A.nt. rom. 2.63.4.
61. Ovid quotes. £nniw: MtU"'. 8.814; Ffi.Sl. 2-.<487; Ennius, A1UL 1..54-.SS.
62. Mddm. 8.816·28.
63. Me.ram. 8.829-St; probably dependent on Ennius, Alltt. 1.100.
64. The: Sumerian version olthe tak narnK the hero Z iu:sudra. Set S.N. Ku.mer
(rraru.). 'Sumerian Myth.t ~nd Epic iales', ANET, pp. 37-59 (« t; soc also E.A. S~is«
(U'.tns.), '1bc: £pic of Gilgame&b'. AN£T, pp. 12.--99 {9$).
65. Author's translation; C reek text from Synoellus, £doga Chrcmogrt~phlu S$. in F.
jac:Qby (ed.t,DV Fragmna~ dtwgriubisthn. Historik" (Leiden: .&rill, 1950-1964), 3C.J.
p. 380.
66. This Ju t point is c.k:t.rer in rM Sumttian version of rbt tak: ' Anu {andt EnliJ
c:berish<d Ziu!JUdra; life like Ctb.t of) a god t~y giYi: him.; breath ecerrulliJrc: !that of) a god
they bring down for bim' (ua.u. lttalll("r, ANET, p. -44).
58 Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the S<ryings Gospel Q
3. Post-Mortem Assumptions
ln Graeco~Roman literature, assumption need nor imply the circumvention

of death. The disappearance of a dead person's body lrom a tomb or funeral
pyre apparently could lead to the same condusions that would be drawn if
the person had dis:.tppea~.d while alive. Lohlink stated that assumption from
a funeral py~ 'obviously assumed the death of the person in question. Thus
assumption does not only concern the living.'" The many venions of the end
of Heraldes provide an illustration: the hero's apotheosis takes place from
his funeral pyre,'* and while some-rource$ speak about the disappearance of
his mortal remains,'9 others take a rationalizing or spiritualizing approach.10
The details of the myth vary widely: the assumption of Herakles was not
always described as bodily or posr~morrem.n Most importantly, these stories
served tO justify (probably after the fact) the veneration of Herakles either
as a hero or as a god.12
Lucian of Samosata s.atiriciu.s such stories in The Passing of Peregrinus.
Proteus kindles his own pyre, then climbs up and engulfed in flames cannot
be seen (Taura ,;,,,;,. <m]61)0£V is TO rrup, oU ~~· sr.>paTO Y' ... ). The
narrator embellishes the account (for the sake of the foolish), concluding
with a vision of a vulture, lampooning emperor apotheosis: 'and then a
vulture, flying up out of the midst of the flames, went off ro heaven, sayil\g in
human speech with a loud voice, "I am through wlth the arth; oo Olympus I
fare•• (Peregr. 39)." Late; thinking of Julius Proculus in the Romulus stories,
Lucian descr-ibes- a dignified~looking man claiming thBt he saw Proteus in
white raiment.' • Despite lucian's satirical intent, this source illustrates that
the 1trong association berween disappearance and deification in the popular
imagination need not be hinden~d by the fotct that the assumed person bad
died.
61. lohfink. Himmd(t~brt• p. 43.

68. Tht t1rlie~1 eviden~ i$ (ootid in Athenian vase-~imins datiqg to around 460 JCE:
set' M.W. .Padilla, Tbe Myths of Heroldu in Anc~t Gruu: Survey 11nd Profik (Lanham,
MD: Univt::nity Pre:M of America, 1998). p . 1$.
69. Sec. ApoUodorus, Bibl. 1.7.7; Diod. Sk., BWI. hist. 4.38·39 lin which Hetakles'
friends can 6nd no borxs after the pyre is consumed h>· a lighmin.g bolt).
70. Stt Suvi~..¢, A.en. 3.402 (Heraldet c:oou-ived U) keep h il ttn)Jii_(U bidden); Ovid,
M~ta"'· 9.2.66·?1 (sbcd as a make sbcd1 its slcin, hiunoru.l body was consumed- ;usr as
h:apperw:d to Romulus, :tccording tO Ovid, Ml!tttm. 8.816·28 •.
71. In fWO depiCtions reponed by Pausanias, Hc:r.akk:s wu rescued &om dc-atb by
Athena, who toOk him away 'o dwell with tbe gods (Paus., ~scr. 3.18.11; J.t9.St.
72. H.A. Shapiro :usues that ~ myrb o( Ht-nkk$' 2pot.heos.is on Mount Oeu w.._,
toottivtd in order to e:xpliin wh practices, at the same location (6th~. liCE) and cliewbete.
wbkh honoured HeraJdcs not as a hero but as a god: H..A. Shapiro, 'Hh6$ Tht01: The
O.a<h and Ap<><beosia of Her>.kl"'• Cl•"ical World 11 U983), pp. 7-18 (15- 17). S.. abo
M. Nilsson, 'Ou F1ammentod des Hcnk.Lct aul dem Oite', ARW 22 •1922), pp. 31G..16.
73. Traos;, Harmon, LO...
7-4. Dtoo. Hat.JWm. t~nt. 1.63.4; f'lutarch, Rom. 28.
Many Creek sourttS dtseribe instanCeS in which dead persons are trans·
lacod bodily co ocherworldly abodes and co immomlity. Erwin Rohde noced
-•nl inscancu from the Aithiopis: Memnon, who is kill..! by Achilles, is
taken by his mocher (with Zeus's p<"rmission) to the ends of the canh where
be is gran cod immortaliry. Lacer the body of Adtilles is taken from the funeral
pyre by his mocher, presumably co a similar end." According co Dionysius of
Halicamusus, the dioappearance of the body of Aeneas from the batdefield
Jed to his veneration as a hero or cht:hontc dcjty. 7• As s.ccn above, Plutarch
was not tympathetic to sud\ views, but he does relate several instances in
which bodies were rtporred as disappearing, including 11 story about the
disoppearance of the corpse of Aristeos of Prnconessus (Rom. 28.4; aiS<l
Herodotus, Hist. 4.14.1·3), and one about the disapp<"arance of the body of
Alcmena from her funeral bier (Rom. 28.6).17
'The Ddficarion of Aninoe•;EKSEc.oots· Apolv011s, a fragmenc·3ry pt>em by
Collimachus, desc.ribes a post-monem assumption. 7' The death of Arsino(
II Philadelphos, sister and wife of Ptolemy lJ Phil• delphos, is dacod ac either
270 or 268 ICE," and the poem, inspired by the quecn's deolh, must have
been wriuen soon after that. Th~ text is fragtnClltary. :and at impotUnt points
it is unc.IHt. However, a ba$ic scenario cmcrgcs from the: D•~gtsil:
' Edtc.>Ots' Apon>oiJS· ~'1'1i• 6E aVTti• a"''Pmio-

8a• UwO TWv Au)CnoUpc.;,v KCII ~pOv Kai n.
~·vos cN"Tijs •a8t6p00eat rriX>s Tc\)'E~rropi.,.
Deification of Arsinoi": he says that she was snatched up by the

Dioscouroi and that her a ltar and sacred prednct were c.stablishtd near
the Emporium.10
15. E. Rohde. Psy<,br. Tht Cult o(So.US ond Ikli.f in lmmorulity Among th~ GruiJ
(tnnt. W..8. Willis• London: Routk<J8~: &- Kcgan Pa.ul. 192j). pp. 6~$; he alto cheuimilar
mditioc:l• about Hyakinth.ottnd Atldepios (P.syGN, pp. 99-100).
76. Olon. Hal.. Rom. mrt. 1.64.4. Accordlna to Se:I'Yiw.. EMiuuayt dut both Aeneas
and R.omulw. 'iWf"t r«korv.d with the: gods t•:secun<~um EM.ium, refuerur inter dcos cum
AcOea': Srni-., A~. (, ,"n1).
17. Accotdma to tbr story given by AntOt\ift\U libmtt...._ Zai• onkra Hermes to
nul Akmm&'l bod1 and to cab (inn11£Y)(fi• ) it ro tbr 1sJa ol dw alae.~~ sbr b«a!DC"
the W>k ol Jthld>mmrbus tAur. uo. M.um. 33.3)' F. Cdoria. n.. M.-r>bou< of
"''"'''*""l.ib<rola: II Tr~ with • ~ l load<>n: New Yodc Rcurt.dge.
1992); L C....,;p (..!.), ""'""""" l.ib<r~ M~ SYfVlOI< (M;bo and
v......, b ritl>ro £dll1>riale CiulpiDo, 1962).
71. Tn• in R. PldH" In!.), ~ (2 vob; ~ Oxlonl u,;....;q P....,
11'4, &. 221 (pp. 1.211-Uk F. N",..;d. (=ru.), Tl>< p...., of c.ti........... (Oxfocd.
Oxford On.iveniry Prcsa, 2001), pp. 113-27.
n. s.. F. Cnybel<, o.. u/b<Jrin ~ .....lmd,..,. pr.U...rq.., , . - ,
d. chronolop b.llbciltiquo (Schwcizcriscl>c Beilli8< "" Altmum•wi_,.,haft, 20; Base~
Friedrich Reinhard~ 1990), pp. 103-12..
so. m.,.IO.IO,I'fcifle•C.~,p. t.ll8nr..... N1"'i<h,P.....,ofC.U..... -,
p. 12• .
60 Post-Mortem Vindication oflesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Unfottunately, the poem itself doe5 not offer any more insight into the
assuroprion of ArsinoC. The Di.egtsis uses a standard term for assumption
{O.vapnO:~w), whith at leas-t indicates that the- poem was interpreted as
describing an assumption; the poem itself almost ce-rtainly contained this
teem, since it caJJs ArsinoC 'Rapt by the gods' {il cSahJootv bptrctylpa, l.
46}. The death of ArsinoC is also in view in the poem, which describes
her smoking pyre (//. 40-41, 45-74) and her funeral, though the cexc is
fragmentary ac chac point (//. 11-15).
The fragmentary text is unclear whether or not a bodily assumption of the
dud queen is intended. Only the ends of the following lines have s urvived:
W~41a, cV ~~" O:onplavOrr> a~cx~av ricSrJ

W1TTo~iuJa 1Tapieu ot~a•«<
I cinveis O~up~ol
) ~fa TOuTO ~·0:
ir~nipa j l\aai41a cjlp<ni6a
0 bride, already on its wayt under

che scarry Wain ... past the: moon
your stolen fsoull was s~eding
... lamentation keen ... a single voice
and this ... 'our queen gone'. 11
The smoke from the pyre might indica~ chat Minoe's body has been burned
(and thus was not raken by the Dioskouroi), but the Herakles legends
show that a body could disappear from a pyre. Certainty is impossible, but
assumption Language herr might connote soul ascent rather t-han bodily
assumprion. 12 As already seen with the HerakJe~ myths, ir may be here rhar
Callimachus composed the poem using assumption language in order ro
justify the cult of Arsinoe after her death,'-' although as one of rbe 'sibling
gods' (eEOI AllEA<Xll) together with Ptolemy U she was already given
d ivine honours during her lifetime.$4
One of t he clearest examples in Creek literature of belief in post-monem
3SSumption is found in Chariton's novel Chaereas and Callirbo~ {dated to
81. Pfeiffer, <Allimadnts. fr. 228.S·9; uans. Nisctich, Pomu of CallimiUhus, pp.
124-2S, which supplies •$0u.l' (4v)(ll) to c:Jarify the feminine participle ICAI:1f'1'01Jiva. C..A.
Trypan.is emends tbc last line cita:l ~hove as rd"etring ro Aqinc>l by name. ro' Apo1vbo:l
JXtoiM1a ..,006a~ Trypani$ !cd. and tt'ill\$.), Callimachfl.l (LCL; Cambridge, MA! I larvard
University Prns, 1958t, pp. 164-65.
32. Stc. also R.A. Hnurd. lmilgi7rtJJion of 11 Mon11rdry: StMdi~s m Ptolnnoic
Propogd'ltda (Pbomix Supplementary Volume. 37; Torooro: Univcniry of Toronro P~s.
2000~ p. 114: •fht poet imagined ~r spirir being c::arried aw.1y by .Kastor Jnt.l P<1lh~x on the
tvMing of her death•.
83. Sec G. HOibl, A Hhtory o(lh' Ptolm*4ic. E.mpirr (London; New Yorlc.: Routledge.
2001),pp. 101-04.
3<. See Harmd, Jmagm.lkm of• M....,cby, pp. 8~n.
Assumption in Antiquil)t 61
around the t urn of the era).u (n facr. the heroine is not really dead. Early ln
the cale, the new husband Chaereas attacks his wife in a jealous rage, and
with the wind knock<d out of her •he a ppears to be dead (Chaer. 1.4-S).
Her condition persists and she is buried, but while in the tomb she revives
and receives a rescue of sorts from a tomb robber. Later, Chaerea,s visits
the tomb at dawn. intending to commit suicide, and finds the stones mo,•ed
a~ ide; r~e ,tomb is searched and found empty (ipwvWv cSE T0v TO:~v oVtiiv
<upiiv ij5uvaTo, 3.3).
The crowd that gathers thinks th1.1t tomb robbers are responsible for
the missing ueasure but cannoc mink of a reason fo r the missing corpse.
Chaereas looks tQ the heavens and wonders~
' Which of the gods has bec()rl'lc my rivQI and c;41.rried off (cim\11)YO)(t) Callirhoc and
now kt:ePi bN with him, ag;~; in.st ber will but cotnptlled by a mightier f.a te? ... Or
can it be th.at I had a goddess 3S mywife and djd not know i~ 2nd 11he w;as abov~ our
bum2n lot? 1\o! evtn .so sbt $bould oot have disappeared (0AA' o\11( i&-1... Onc~8ti v}
from the world so quic.kJy or for such a tt:tson: (OI~riton. Chan. J.J•"
The grief stricken Chaereas vows to se-arch for his love over land and
sea, even rising ro rhe sk_y lf necessary (~~:G-v lii5 cuhOv bva~ijucu T0v O:ipa
&Jvc.;,~al}." He discovers, when the tomb robber is captured later, rhat
Callirhoe is still alive (3.4).
Although cbe reader knows that Cailirhoe is not dead, the reaction of
Chaereas is telling. For, chinking he[ dead. he wonders whether s he has been
assumed from the tomb. This •is::t text which prototypically determines how
... rhe disappearance of a body from a grave was interpreted reHgiousJy'. u
Chaereas actua.IJy suggests two fairly different assumptioo scenarios. Hi$
first suggestion- that she has been taken by the gods - implies that he thinks
Callirhoe w;~s also deified. Chaereas gives two ex--amples from the past:
'So did Dionysus once sreal Ariadne from Theseus and Zeus Semele from
Act;~eon.' According tO B.P. Reardon, the usua1 stories of thest characters
85. G.P. Goold atg\.lef (or 2S BC£-$0 C£ on the b..-$1$ o( Charitoo•s oon-Attici:zlng
Jwini: G.P. Goold (ed. and trans.), Clul.ritOft: <AIIirb~ (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Haf'latd
Univenit:)' Pre$$. 199$), pp. J- 2; d. A. Papaltikolaou. CJu:riirm·StNdim: Untnsutbtmgen
ZMr Sprache lmd Chronologie der gr~c:hischm rOmtJ~ (Hypomnemat.a, 37; GQningec:
Van~« Ruprecht, 197.)), pp. 161-ti.l, who arglltll a so~wb:n earlier date; and
d. ~idr.crmann, '(>as lttrc Grab', pp. 284-85, who thought Chariton wu inOuc:tk:ed by the
30'1"'"-
86. TraM. Goold, LCL.
87. Biclcermann sees a tension bcrwttn Chaercas• explanations of CaOitboc's dlsap-
peara.nc:c and hi$ immediate depart\lre tQ $Cat ch for her ('D~ 1eere Gr:.b', pp. 284-85).
88. S. van lilborg2nd P. 0\att:lion Coo:na.J~sus· A~aU11K$S .md ~"'""u' m
l..Mke 2-f (Biblic:al lntCTpmati.on StriC'$o 45; l.eidm: BciU, 2000), p. 194:• al~ aic.kennan.o,
'Du ~re. Grab', p. 285.
62 Post·Mortem Vindie4tion ofJesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
did not run exactly liS Cha.rimn d~cribes. They are mentioned here because
they were monals who were deified."
Chaere.u also sugge-sts t hat CaJlirhocts corpse may have disappeared
because she was really a goddess who had rerurned to her rightful home in
the divine realm. As already noted, the idt:o1 that divine beings apparently
mortal are proven immortaJ whc:o they disappear from earth appears quite
frequently in connection with assumption.90 Here Chaereas mentions Peleus.,
husband of the immortal Thetis, daughter of Nercus. Peleus and Thetis had
a son (Achill<~) before she returned to her undersea abode." Thus Chariton
sees rwo different possible implications of a5$umption: it is eithe.r the moment
o f deilication, or the rerum of a d ivine being to the divine realm.
A number of post-mortem assumptions are also narrated in the
Mt~Gmorphos-. of Antoninus l iberalis (2nd-3rd c . cr)." Antoninus favours
disappearance language generally in connection with mct.amorphosis.'.l ln
the several cases where he narrates the character•s death ~fore the disap..
pearance of the body, it is dear from subsequent veneration or ritual that an
apotheo.is has taken place. Besides the story of Alcmena (Ant. lib., Metam.
33), already mentioned above, Amoninus also narrates the post· morrem
disappearances of Ctesulla (1.5), the beast known as Lamia (or Sybaris) (8.7),
Aspalis (13.6}, and Metioche and Mcnippc (2.5.4 ). One story describes the
post-morre,m disappearance of an enrire community, the Dorians (37.5), and
their subsequent metamorphosis into birds. All these stories use either the
(divine} passive of a~-~~"' or a~lll\s YtYIIO~at for the disappearance of
the body or bodies. One story also contains the motif of unsuccessful search
(oti• t\6.JV1]ilt]oa• 11ipolv (w oc:\~a To Tiis ' Aorra~iros), Metam. 13.6]. In
the StQries where a post·mortem disappearance occurs, Antoninus seems to
associate a person's metamorphosis with the disappearance of his or her body
in such a way that the dead body is transformed into the new thing. This is
the case with Aspalis: her corpse's disappearance coincides with her srarue•s
appearance in a temple (Ant. lib., Metam. 13.6)." A simib.( logic obtains
89. 8.P. Rn.rdon (~. and tT:lns.). Colluud Gt~l!'.l N(Mit.U (Berlcelt"y, CA: UniYeniry
of Califomta Pres&. 1989)_, p . .S3 o.. .S 1. Ac;rordiag to Homer, Ariadne was killed by Antmis
(Od. 11.321-25); Plutarc;h repom 5t'Vt t:ll other Vet$iOTU of htr deroi~ (The-$. 20.1), but
Apollodorus $1)$ chat Diocysus stole ((ipnOOt) bet away {BibLe.J .9; d . Paus., I.X.sa: 1.20.3,
10.29.4). About the S«ond c.oupk1 Apollodotui uys that Semele was made prrgnant with
Oion)'$\JS by Ze\.1$, wh<t ~ter i.oadvestmtly fr.ightened her to d~th; and by 50Ql.C accountl
Zeus caused Aaawn, who upon.edly wooed Semt}e. to be eaten by bit own dogr. {BibL
3.4.3-4). Diony~Uilate:r rt$C.UCd hi$ mother Seme-le from Hades and a.sctndcd (0lii\A8cv) to
bea•cn whb he< (Bib/. J..S.J ).
90. See Loll6nk, Himm<lf.Jm, pp. 47-48; T•lbttt, 'lnunonals'. pp. 421-25. See, !0<
instance, Arrian, Anab. 7.17.3 t Akxa.nder) and Oion. Hat~ Ant. rom. 2.63 {Romulus).
91. See H..,.; II. 13.83-88; 18.432; ApollodoM, 8ibl. 3.13.$-6.
92. See Ccloria~ Maamorpbous of AntOifim~~ Libwolis, p. 2. The work is known from
• sica~ nintb<enrury manuscript.
93. ' A+avi~ua and related (onm oceut 22 times i.n the forty·ODe fhort r~urati\'CI.
.94. So abo with Btitorna.ttU (Ant. Lib., M#IJJm, 40.·4), who after her disappearance js
vc:Dt'rated by cbc name 'A+a1a.
in the stories of Ctesulla (l .S) and Alcmena (33.3·4). But in another story, a
different understanding of metamorphosis is expressed.
A.fta the dearh of Oaunius, tht b~rb,uian Dlyrians cove:red W it [i.e., tht Dorio11.n$")
tand.s and plotted ag.a.irut them. They 2p~ared $udde:nJy on the island and the
Ulyrians slaughtered all tht Oorians u they ww: sacri.ficing victims. By lhe will of
Zeus tM bodiet; of 1M Gttt.ka dWp~red (Ji+avio8fl) and ~ir souls weu c.b.anged
(pniPa.\cwJ inro birds. (Ant. Lib., M~l4m. 37 1 ..s•'
Why would Antoninus introduce this idea, espedaJly if the post·morttm
u ansformation of corpses seemed appropriate in other instances? One possi·
bility is that this text combines (1) the traditional meaning of assumption,
which involved the translation of the whole person alive to another place,
and subsequent immortality in the body, with (2) the •tandard body-wul
duali•m which held that deotb separates the soul from the body." The
bodies of the Greeks are tran.s-ported to the divine pres.encct but thcit souls
are turned into birds.17
4. Assrunpli<>n 1..4nguage in Gru* Epitaphs
There appear$ to have been a conventional use of auurnption language ln

the Graeco--Roman trad.ition, in epiraphs and other materials, in instances
where a ~r-Son - typically a child - dies an unrimely death. Thest: sources do
nor describe 'acrua1' assumptions., but use the language to <:onvey the grief of
parentS whose children have been ' taken away' from rhem. As Anne-Marie
Vetilhac remarked in her survey of Creek epitaphs dedicated to children,
•Premature death is an a bduction• - and many of these sources do consider
early death as an abduction of the deceased by some malcvolcnt divine
agcnt.n Typical vocabulary (for instance, OpnclCc.l and omU&.l) and themes:
(for example, divine 1ove and malice) occur together in suc.h rnatt:rials. A few
cxarnpiC$ will be: sufficicnr tO illus-trate.
In an epitaph dedicated to a 6fteen·year-old boy named Attalos (Cythium,
c.75 BCE), ixpnci.C(A) and the theme of divine love appear together..
nivn OE tc.al OiK' EtWv 0 ~aplts IJITOS' ~pnaoE MotpWv,

"Ana:~<, oo~IIOT<iTlls ~qTpos &ya~a Tu)(llS,
T0v ~lav O:o~eoVVTa ~eal Eis ~eaACx m:lvTa- -
9S. T.rao.s. Cc:loria. Met4morphosn.

96. Sec the di.sco$$jon in Bolt,]tsus' Dt{eat of Dratb, pp. 261-65.
97, .-\ .simibr ileen.ario .1ri~ in c:ctuin tau dc!K'ribing tbt assumption of Masy: $inct:
bt.r death wu oot denied. maoy narrative: 30ur"' desc.ribe both the ~t of her 50UI ~nd
t~ subseqU(nr auwnption of her eo~ He~ving sn e-mpty tOmb). Ste fun:htr bdow.
98. A.-M. Verilbac, nMt.Et ~onPOh Pol#r {,.;,.;, {nPArMATEIAI THI
AJ<At.HMIAI ASHNON, 41; 1 vols.; Ath=: ll'M>EION t.HMOIIEYMATON THI
AJ(At.JiMIAI A9tfl0N, 1978- 1982), p. 2.173.
64 Post· Mortem VindiGOtion of jesus in the Sayings Gosptl Q
"ATTa~ov a\r~oipw1 XPI'Jo0~Evov ~IOTCill '

T01yOp ~~ Xv-ne'io8E Aiav· ~ yQp vio~o~, ~s 'TtvtS' rlnov,
El +ihou SoTt 81ols , ~Vv ixr• 8cXvaTov.
At fifteen yeats, t he cruel thread of the Fates [Moicas] snatched you

away,
Actalos, the delight of (your) most noble mother, Tyche,
you who practise wisdom and [ ... ] into all good things,
Attalos, whose life was well-blessed by Face:
Do not be overly sorrowful: for though you are young, as some people:
say,
if ooe is friend co the gods, he has a swift death."
The last line of this stanza expresses the same sentiment as the famous line of
Menandcr, "Whomever the gods love d ies young.' 1oo Alw, here as elsewhc:re,
OprrO(w is used in a stereotypical way: often a child is snatched away by
Hades oc the Fares. described wirh some negative epithet. 101 In this example
it is the 'cruel thread of the Fates' that have caused the early death of Attalos,
who nonetheless is described as 'living a life well-blessed by Fate' (<u~oip<.>t
XPrJOci~t:\NJV ~lbTwt, J. 4). It is a remarkable {bu[ not arypical) contradiction
that the themes or divine love and divine rna lite come together 35 they have
here.IOl
The next two examples emphasize the haste of the deity.
Ti omUoas,' AiOq, T0v VJ)mov ~prraoas fuJC:!v,

TOv yAvKEp0v Tt IOAwva KaT'J'jyayEs oUK EM~ocxs,
To flpi~os ·~ ~TJ.,;',u, To Kallou j3pioj>os; O>s ntKpOu iillyos
6<tllaio•s youieoo•, rlE!Tpw~iu~. i~nilleooas.
Why did you hasten. Hades, and snarc;b our baby away,
sweef Solon, whom you have taken down without piry,
99. IG $.1, 1186 = V~rilhac. 11Ait.E:C AnPOI, no. 62.A.J.6 (Gycruum, e. 1S BCE);
author•li m mslarion. •ApftO(w is used twice. moro in the S3mc epitap~ stanzas C and 0:
"'Ana>.ov (... ( ~prraotv ~ TOX•-"1 Moipa np~ aeavc:iTOIIS' (C1·2);"ATTO;AO$' ~ 6Cii~w\l
~PftOOC t:Cl a:o'rixc,• (0.2).
100. Menaadu, The Double Du.nver: Cw ot &eol 411Miion1 Ono8vt)oxu vf.os. a.. a1110 in
IPiurareh,J Con< Apo/1., 34.
101. See for example Peek, Griechi1che Grab,edichte, no. 149: 0 pOOKcruos QpnaoEv
..A16os TupW (Polyrrbcneia, Crete. 2nd c. B(l). For tht divine IU$Sivt, stt (Plutarch. I c.:t>N:.
ApoU. 18: 'We must regard as v;ain and foolish suda exclamations as~ "'But he ought nor
to luve bc:fll tnatchl!d away while young!"' (QU• oUK E&1 viov OVTa &:\IGpnayiiwu, trans.
&bbin.. LO.); ~nd Luci''"• Lua. 13: 'Dearest ~hiJd, you ace gone from me~ dead. rdt aw•y
before your rime .. .' (Tilt\IOV ~61arov. olxn 1101 Kat Ti&v!)Kas Kai npO Qpas irvlvtrrciCJ8n.s,
ttam. Harmc>a,. LCL).
102. V<r;lbac,I7Ait.EI AflPOI, p. 2.216.
Assumption in Antiquity 6S
our beautiful baby, six months old? What bitt<r anguish
you have caused, Destiny [Pepromene], to these sorrowful parents! 10J
In a similar way, the following example castigates- an 'ins.atiable Hades' with

a Hne that is repeated almost verbatim in sev~ral epitaphs of similar age and
provenance.
'A rrMpw~' Ai6q, Ti ~· vrin tov ijprrao•s ci~vw;

Tl oneUlittS': oU ooi rrclVTEs ~~1Ab~t8a;
Insatiable Hades, why did you snatch my child away so s uddenly?

Why did you hasten? Arc we aU not owed to you? 104
In these examples, both lxpnO:(UJ and ontV~ arc used to accuse the divine
agent blamed for the early death of both robbery and undue haste.'"
Sometimes, however, it was the deceased who was thought of as hascening
from this world? fleeing its evils. In the following example, t he soul haStens
ro the divinity:
~;e,ov Ka~bxatpov exu ~o6• ofipa, ~t rrotlaq;

~S' beavchou oc:lpa violo ~eOpou·
on;O&v OSOv 8Eiqv y(lp inronpo~uro\ioa 1J<pi1Jva;
TTEUKE&xvolo ~lou, ~s elvin ~ea8a:p~.
This tamb eontains the unmarried Kalokairos, because (his) immonal soul
left <he body of the young boy;
for it hur-ried on its way to the d ivinity, le-aving behind the anxieties
of this bitter life, goin,g up as a pure spirit.'~
Thus the one who d ies early avoids not only potential troubiC$ and sorrows,
but also the polltJtion of good characcer. 101 In the Hellenistic consolation
mar.ec.i.als, then, assumption language and themes are exploited to emphasi.u
the s-uddenness of the divine. removal of the deceased, and to provide for the
grieving some sense of the divine motivation or purpOSe$ behind their loss.
Since this use of assumption language is euphemistic, rather than realistic,
103. I G 2, 12629 • VCrilh111~ nAI11EI AnPOt, no. 1$1 (Athem., c. ISO CE); :t~ uthot'$
uanslation. Ste a lso Verilhac, rTAIJlEI AOPOI~ nos. 148-S-0, 152 for Opaci(w and ontV6w
togdher.
104. C/G 3, 6227 • V!o1 hac, n AI.!EI AOPOI, no. 148 (Rome, 2nd-3rd c. C Cll);
author's translation. for the same expres.-sion.s, $oCe VC:ril ha~ ~ 14.9 and 1$0.
lOS. Sot Wri.lhac, n,t,14 EI AnPOt, l. 19l-S.
106. TG H. 1729 e Peek. Gr~<hildJe Grt~.bgulichk, no. 296 (Rome, Jrd e. et:U2uthor's
mmslation.
107. Set. also Cons. Apo/1. 34: The o~ who diesc t:arfy is not onJy •spa.r.:d many C\ik',
but alto avojds 'any grossness of condUICt as is wont to be thc-c;oQComiUot ola Joos old 3i$e'
(ttans. &bbitt. LCL).
66 Post·MOrlem Vindication of]<St<S in tf1e Sayings Gospel Q
disappearance Language does not occur (since the body does not in fact
disappear).
Assumption in ]ewUh Uterat.ure
Tht following list from the Talmudic writing D~rek £retz Zada names only
nine or ten insunccs of assumption in the Jewish tradition:
lbere were nine who enreted tbt Garden of Eden alive, viz..: £noc:h the $00 of
Yered, £Jijah, ~ Messiah, El.icur the sernnt of Abtaham, Hiram, king of iyre,
Ebed~mek<:h the Cushite. ]abet the soo o( R. Juda che Prince, .8ith.iah the daughter
of Pharaoh. and Straeh., the daughter of AtN:r. Some $3.J: Also R. Joshua b. Levi.
(Jm. &. Z..t. 1.18)1"
For most of these individuals, assumption storjes have not survived, but the
li$t demonstrateS the conservative nature of the Jewish assumption u adirion.
Possibly, this results from a reluctance to attribute to no more than a few
exceptional individuals the kind of exalted (or even dei6ed) post·mortem
status that was usually assoc:iated with assumption in antiqujty. For, as shown
above, a$$umption or disappearance in the Graecc::>--Roman sources generally
implies either (a) the deification of a morral person, or (b) the return of an
immortal person to the divine realm. Whatever the tase, the noture of the
jewish assumption mu!itions limits the following survey to this se(ecr group
of individual>: Enoch, Elijah, Moses, the Boolt of Wisdom's 'righteOus one'
(Wisdom 2- S), and • few othe,. including the seen of apocalyptic writings.'"
1. Ovmri<w: Terminology and Motifs
There are only a few paniculars of terminology and motif in which Jewish
assumption narratives differ from tbosc: found in Grace<rRoman Jiteratun;
and these will become clear from the following discussion. A few preliminary
remarks are necessary, however~ Fi!$t, as Lohlink noted, the technical term
108. A. Cohen (cd. and tran.s.), The Minor Troctat~ of 1-h. Tlllmud~ .Ma.sulttoth
ftn41tnoth t2 vols•• London: Soncino, 1965); ste Lohfink.IUmnu/(@rt. p. no. 247o Zwit-p~
Ascmsion, p. 76.
109. A few mioor tand mainly late) assumption traditions wiU not be discuned
Muin: tbost <oncc.ming j(-rt.miab, :according ro Victorious of Pen:au.. Comme.tt<m'.u i"
AfX')<'.4/ypt.im loamsls 11 .3; $« K. Bergu.!M A.u(nttehung des Prop~k:N tmd dk £.rh0hu.ng
tks M~lunsohnes (SUNT, 13; <.":..cti~n: Vandenhocc.k &: RuP£e<-ht, 1976), pp. 256-57
n. 72; Jonah, s«ordiog to Mjdr. p, _26.7; !lee Zellte, "Entrliclcuna'. pp. $2+-25; cbt prophet
like Mose:s. aococdiQg fO the l>o$:itbe.uu; &ee Zwiep1 Asansi~ p. 6-4 n. 1; and the Teacher
of Righr~ <1«0tding (possibly) to 4Q491; see M.G. Abegg, Jr... 'Who Asctnded tO
He;aven? -4Q491, -4Q427. and the Teac:btt of R.q;hteOU$11t$$', in P.W. flint and CA. .Evans
(cd's.t, &dtalology. Mnsianism (/nd the ~411 S,a Scrolls (Srudies in the De2d Sc2 Sc-rolls
:and Rt~ted Uuratute; Cr:tnd Rapids.. Ml: Berdmans. 1991)., pp. 6J ..73.
A.s5Jtmption in Antiquity 67
lor assumption in Hebrew is np.,.

The Septuagint translates this verb with
~naTtilY]~• (Gen. 5.24) and CrliOAa~jloV<.> (2 Kgs 2.9, tO, ll), so that these
two verbs b«<>mt the usual terms for assumption in Hellenistk Jewish
writings. 110 'Aprrcitc.l and its related forms are extremely uncommon in
the jewish assumption tradition. Language that denies the death of the
individual is common, for generaUy assumption was viewtd as an escape frorn
death.'" Otherwise, the same basic terminology and motifs are found in both
Hellenistic Jewish and Graec::o·Rornan assumption narratives. 1l 2
A few important differences should be mentioned, however. lt is not
surprising that the Jewish sources are helitant when it comes to apotheosis:
so, instead of venerating the assumed person as a god or establishing a cult in
their honour, the witnes~s ohen are depicted as praising God. HJ This: is not
to uy that J>O$HlSSumption heavenly exaltation is ruled out e.nrirely, however.
In fact, GUnter Haufe has shown that there is a nearly inevitable conncctkln
in jewish thought between as-s umption and eschatological fuo.ction. He
concluded that 'only a hiStorical person who was received into the heavenly
realm by means of a bodily assumption could receive a s-pecial es-chatological
function•. u-t This tendency, it wiJI be argued below, could also work in the
opposite direction: that is, sometimes figures who were accorded a prominent
eschatological ro le came to have bodily assumption (and therefore heavenly
preservation) artributed to them. Typically the person is thought of as being
preserved in heaven for their future escharologieal role, and, as will become
apparent, such a role almost inevitably involves some kind of exaltation in
heaven or a return tO earth.
One other imponant fea ture found in some Jewish assumption narratives
was noted by Loh6nk. In some sources, the per-s on about to be raken into
heaven receives) through divine agency, foreknowledge of the assumption.
This idea is met already in the assumption of Elijah, where he, Elisha, and
the 'sons of the prophets' all know what is about to happen (2 Kgs 2.1-12),
although the story does not explain how they have received this knowledge.
In later sources, the rime that intervenes between the rcc:cption of this
revelation and the a$Sumption itself is meant explicitly as a period in which
the sage can instruct the people of God, whether directly or by malting a
wdtten record, about the end.IU
110. Lobliok, Himmelf•"''· p. 73.

111. Sou Lohfink, Himmel{alwt, p. 74.
112. See th<o tabln on cerminology and motifs in PJnOm. [)epGrhlre, pp. 139-40.
113. Lohfin.k, Himmd{tthrt, p. 73. See. for insr:mce, Lk. 24.52-53; lEn. 67.3; 68.5.
114. Hau.fe, 'Entriickung und eachatologische f unkrion'. p. 10$ {author's erarul;uion).
11$. Lob.6nk calls thi t narrariv~ pantm 'an estab1ish~d schema': 'A. Recc:prion ol
r~•d4tion; 8. lnten-enins ~r;od of (orty d:t.yt; C. Assumpeiot~' (Himmd(ahrt, pp. 60-61;
author's rtanslation •. Lohfink'ssou.rus are 1 En. 81 .5~6; .f Ezra H ; 2 &tr. 76; and 2 &ocb.
wbosc: whole srrutturt i.s buc:d on 1his ,sd,cm;&. AocoOOing co Loh6nk, the reception of
revelation OCCut$ in 2 E~t. 3-38; tbe ra t of tM: book ls the intc:rvmiog tinw: i.n wb.icb Ernxb
insO"UCts IUs cbildrt:n, and his wumptjoo OCCI.It$ in 2 En. 67. Here tht i.nrtrveo.ins ptriod ts
thirty, not fotty days (2 E.n. 36.1-2); in the Boolc of H~iJWJJlyl.Mmbwri#1 (1 &. n ·82l the
period i$ <me yeu (1 F..n. 81.6).
68 Post-Mortem Vindication of'"'" in the Sayings Gospel Q
2. E.noch
In che body of licerarure <hac developed around the 6gute of Enoch,'"

g.re.arer attention is given to dcscTibing his temporary heavenly journeys.•
and the wisdom and knowledge he received on these journeys, than to his
final assumption. The earliest reference to Enoch's assumption is fou nd in
the Sc:thite genealogy of Genesis 5. All other references arc in one way or
another expansions of this very brief note. Enoch appears in the seventh
position in this genealogy (Gen. 5.21·24), and in marked contrast with the
other figures listed there, it is not explicitly said that he died {no~,).lnstead.
it is said twice: that Enoch walke.d with God {C~i1 ~ilnt\); in verse 24,
'Enoch walked with Cod and then was no more, for Cod rook him' (nl' ll1
O'i"'"ll 1n 11 np':r:)). Here already is language of absence or disappearance,
sugges-ting assumption.
It is nor c.rtain whether Enoch's walking with Cod should be understood
as the reason foe his assumption, although later texts emphasiz.e his piety or
righteousness (for instance, the Septuagint, which replaces this expression
wich ru~pio'l'llotv' Evc.>x Tci> 9tci>, 'Enoch pleased Cod'). james VanderKam
tbjnks 'walking with God' connotes an assoc:ia6on with angels: he sees the
definite C"i1 '?Mi1 as a clue. that Enoch enjoyed an ongoing fellowship with
angels, the ·etohim. This is an important recurring cheme in the Enochic liter·
ature and in other sources (.such as jub. 4.2l..22). Accor:ding tO VanderK.. m,
this text distinguishes those with whom Enoch walked, C,i1;~i1, from the
one who took him- God. O,il ~ without the anicle. 117 Zwiep's conclusion
116. For a comprehensive survey of Enocbie liteuture a.nd a.Jhuioch, see J.C.
VanderKam. Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbi.a, SC: Univcrsjty of South
C:uolin:t Pte», 199.Sh .iCC alt;o j.C. V;u'lder.Kllm, '"E.nOch TraditiOn$ in j1.1bilet$ and Other
Sccond.Cmrury Sow=', SBl.SP (1918], pp. 1.229-51; ILA. Krai~ 'Ph;)o OoS<pbus,Sirsch
and Wisdom of Solomon) oo Enoch', SBLSP (1973), pp. 1.253-$7; J\1. Hi.mmelfarb, •A
Report on £noch io Rabbinic Literaru.re', SBLSP (1978), pp. 1.259~9; VI. Adler, 'Enoch
in Urty Christian l.ireurure:', SBI..SP (1978), pp. 1.271- 75. Se:e also JJ. Coll.ins, The
Apo<4lyptU; lmaginatKm: An Tntroductio,. to )~ish ApO<Alypti.e Utnatuu (Grand Rapids:
f.etdmans. 2.od cdn, 1998}. For Jurvey& of marertalsdealing sped6ea.Uy with tbt asswoptio.o
of Enoch, Stt Haufe, •£iurikkuog und escharologische Funktion', pp. 105-08; l.Qhfutk,
Himmd(ahrt, pp. SS- 51; Sclunin, Entrilchu>g - /l.u,..m.. - Him.,.•lfahrt, pp. 152-92.;
and Zwj,ep, A.s«nsioft, pp. 41-.58.
117. VanderKam. EnO<.h: A MAn {or AU Gen<rotiom, pp. 13-14. 'The linguistic grounds
arc perbapt slender, but it is possible that che refcrenc.t to f.noc:h in Gen. 5.21-24 is an urly
(;()1\flarion of .Me&Opota.o:'lian myths about .Enmeduranki, who received divine rtVdation, and
about the flood hero, who was a.s.swntd. So! W. Boossct and H. Crcssmann, ~ Rdigio"
dt:J Judmtums im splitiHfknistU<JNn ~italtn (HNf, 21; TUbi n~: Mohr Siebeck, Jrd
~dn, 1926), pp. 490-.91; P. Grdot, 'La ltgende d"Henocb dans let Apocryphts et dans Ia
Bible: Origine et s.igni6cation', RSR 46 (19$8), pp. S- 26. 181- 210; H.S. Kvanig. Roots
of ApOC41yptic: Tin Mesopo~Qmian BtUkgrof>l:lfd of rbe f.noch figur~ of th-e Son of M4n
(WMANT, 61; NeuldrcbenNiuyn: Neukirdiener Vcrl.ag. 1988}; R. Borger. 'The lnc;a.ntation
Series Bit Mi#rl and Enoch'& AK.ensioa to Heuco.. in D.T. T~umura and R.S. Hess (t"CJ.s..J, 'I
Slwd~d TttUriptlo~ from IH{or~ t~ Flood': A~ Nur &sum, Likrary, and Unguistk-
Af1p1oa.t.be1. to Gmn.iJ 1·11 (Sources for Bibl i~ l .a.nd Theo1o&cal Study, 4; Winona l..Jke.
IN: Eismbraun5t 19:94), pp.l14-33 (223-32}.
Assttmption in Antiq~ity 69
is appropriately cautious.: ~whatever the preci$t reference is, Eooeh is marked
by his contact with the heavenly world'."'
As alrady noted, the Scpruaginr depam sisni6cantly from rbe Hebrew
in Gen. S.2~: 'and Enoch pleased God, and he wu not found, because God
rr:anslattd him' (r;alfVT)p{aTl)Otv'EV!Wx t~ 8u;, r;ai oUx tlYpioxno Ot1 J.UTi
o
8!)<av aliri:w 8t(>s). Armin S.:hmin has shown <he dependmc:e here on Creek
assumption terminology.11-' Further. as Zwicp has nored. 'the motive: [sic)
of absence is replaced by rhe (more powerful!) morif of unsucomful s<arch
{cNx qVpianro), a cyplcal topos of Hellenistic rapture scoricf. u• A number:
of Iacer <ext$ echo the Scpruaginc rendering of rhe Enoch nore, usually with
slight modification$ or additions.
For instance, the Greek translatiOJl of Sjrach is o. liule more expansive on
rhe subject of Enoch's assumption. Efi()Ch is mentioned twice in Sirach. Sir.
44.1 6 LXX reproduces 'Enoch pleased the Lord and was raken up' from Gen.
S.24 LXX, but adds 'an example of repentan<:e to rhe generations' (vrrb&t)'lla
IJITa\IOias- TOiS' yevtcils). Tht Hebrew ttads •a sig.n for tht knowledgt o f
fucure scnerations'.m The Greek translation here was probably in8ucoccd
by rraditions which associated Enoch with ~ptnt.1na.w The Hebre-w and
the Creek of Sir. ~9.14 also differ. Where the Septuagint says only that he
was r.keo up 'from the earth' (av£AJi~+Srl arro t1W ~I. the Hebrew has
the ttrminus of his assumption in mind: "Few on r.uth have been such a5
Enoch; ht too wu ta.kt..n up within', that is, into tht djvinc prewnct. UJ
Oddly, Sir. 49.14 LXX uses ava11al4!0vw to describe the Assumption of
Enoch (rather rhan llHClTllitun, as in Gen. S.24 LXX and Sir. ~-16 LXX).
Since avaAalll!<i""' i$ used for the :usumption of Elijah (2 Kgs 2.9·11 LXX;
Sir. 48.9 LXX), the rranslation of this reference ro Enoch prob•bly bas a
c:ompari.son with £lijah in mind. A later u~ of the Cretk Enoch uadidon
appears in the Wisdom of Solomon, which uses l11ngmage drown from Gen.
5.24 LXX co describe the righteous one who dies early."' Heb. 11.5-6 also
echoes Gen. S.24 LXX, adding that Enoch did nor see death (ToU ll~ l&iv
96:110Tov). He.re he is an enmple of the faith that please• Cod."'
Ill. Z.wil"p, ~~ p. <42 o.. 1.

II,, A. Sebm;n, •o;. Ang.tbcnUb<t HcnochGm 5, 2t -2<;, dtt I)(X', ill). S<hta.,..
(od.~ ,....,, u.d ....J (;ott.wptwdt, _ . , . nu Stp~ lfaocbrik ). Zqkr, Fza, I;
'»Unburl: llcboo<, JJ721, pp. 161~'-
120. Zwicp,..........,,p. <l (emp..m . . .J).
121. So P.W. SJ.<ban md A.A. Di l.dl&. 1M IV""""' of !H.. $""' ..1 Nrw T•~
with N01n ("" n; Ntw Yort: ~y? 1917), p. •n. Skehan notes 1ba1 dlU YUW
appun ndthtt ift the MaNd. &~en: of Sira<h oor in cbe Syriac "CRJOR (WiJJOm of Bm
s;,.s, P. .. , ).
Ill. 5«, for iaAunce, Gnt. R.ab. 1; set also D. LUhtmattn, •Hcnocb und else Mrtaoo&a-,
ZNW" ( I"S), pp. 11»-16.
12J. So Skehan and Oi Leila, Wistlom of B8tl Sirll, pp. 54 1-42.
124. ThiJtcxt will ~ ex.unioed in detail below.
1!.$. S..abo LAB 1.16; 1 Cf...,, 9.3.
70 Post-Mortem Vindit:4tion ofJesus in the Sayings Cospe/ Q
Philo of Alexandria takes the assumption language of Gen. S.24 LXX

rnttaphorically. 12' In one instance, Philo interprets 'he was not found' to
mean 'hat while Enoc:h existed on earth, he was imperceptible to the wicked
because of his goo<iocss-, and he takes 'he was translated' co mean that he
journeyed from 1he monal life 10 !he immonal (Mut. Nom. 34-38). In his
ueatise on Abraham he quotes Gen. 5.24 LXX directly (Abr. 17-19). Here,
however, Philo interprets 1.1naTi8ruu as indicating repentance brought about
by God:
w~ arC' cotd of l'£noc:bl that he p-roved "to be plc:asing ro God and wu not (oUDd
beeautt God cnnsfetred him' (IJ.lTf&rtKtv aUTO.., 0 &Os},. (or tnmsfer:antt impli~:S
rurniog and changing{~ yQp "'n0.8to1s- "tf)Om\11 i~+olvc1 KOi ~~t~Mv). and che
c:hange is tO the bctttt because it is brought about by tbe fOfttbough_r of Gc>d. (A.br.
17-18)121
Philo also takes associa1ed 'disappearance' language metaphorically: Enoch

w•s not found 'either becouse the old reprehensible life is blotted out and
disappears (i)¢>aulo8a1) and is no more £oun~ ... or btcause he who is
1hus transferred and takes his plate in the better class is noiUrally hard 10
find' (Abr. I 9). '" Though Philo does no1 give a lileral reoding of !he bodily
assumption of Enoch in these sources, he elsewhere echoes traditions about
his assumption without dearh,l21
In Questions and Amwers <>n Genesis. Philo suggests bodily assumption
when he says that 'the cod of worthy and holy men is nor death bur trans~
lation and approaching another place•, and when he goes on to talk about
Enoch's becoming invisible (QJUJe.st. in Gen. 1.86). But here there is some
tension, for Philo a l$0 insists that Enoch's assumption transferred him to an
incorporeal mode of existence: 'When he was sought, he was inV'isible, not
merely rapt from their eyes. For the translation to another place is nothing
else than another position; but he is said (to have moved) from a sens-ible and
visible place to an incorporeal and intelligible form' (1.86). 1,. Philo seems
here to hold thai Enoch disappe3red from bodily life but was transferred (or
assumed) to incorporeal existence; the same got$ for Elijah and Moses as
well. This is reminiscent of Ovid's iipproach to the assumptions of Romulus
and Herakles. combining bodily disappearance with a 'shedding? of the
mortal body. 1J 1
126. Josephus is relatively .siJent on the <I$$Umptjoo of EnOGb, sayi:ng onJy·thar becaust
be had rctumt'd tO the divinity iCtva~pr,o' ft~ "TO S.iov) ther~ was no rttOrd of his death
(A"t. 1.85; see also 9.28).
127. Trans. Col110tt, LQ..
128. Trans. Colson, LU.
129. Sec P. Borsen. 'Heavenly Ascent in Philo: An Examination of ~t.:aed Pa563gtS',
in C.A. Evam and j.H. Charlesworth (eds.), Tb# P$hUkpivapht1 4nd f,tlr/y BibU¢.1
/•"'~"<""""' USPSup, 14; Sh<ffi<l& )SOT P""" 19931, pp. 246-<>8 C249J.
130. Trans. Ma.f'C\.1&., LCL.
Ul. Ovid, Md4m.. 8.816-U, 9.266-71.
The assumption of Enoch. receives more extensive treatment in Enochic

texts such as the Book of H~.aven/y Luminaries and the Dream Visions (now
I (E.thiopic) E."'xlJ 72-82 and 83-90 respectively), and in ]ubikes, writings
that date from the third ~nd sctond centuries 8(.£. The Book of Heavenly
Luminaries does not narrate Enoch's assumption, but the seven holy ones
give him advance warning of it, admonishing him tO ust the inte.rvening
rime to instruct his children: •we will leave you with your son for one year
until you again give your (last?) command, to teach your children, write for
them, and testify tO all your children; and in the second year rhey will take
you from them' (1 En. 81.6). m According to ]ub. 4.21, Enoch was with the
angels of God three hundred years, during which time he wroce and bore
wimess against the Watchers (42.2). Then he 'was raken from among the
children of men, and [the angels] led him to the garden of Eden for greatness
and honour. And behold, he i.s there writing condemnation and judgment
of the world, and all of the evils of the <hildren of men' (4.23). 1" Here is
apparently rhe earJiest suggtstion that En9C.h's assumption is connccred wlrh
his presence and activity elsewhere. 1).1 In the Anim.al Apocalypse, part of the
Enoc:hic Duam Visions, Enoch narrates his own assumption. He is taken
from the generations of the earth, set on a high towe; ~nd ordered to stay
and document the fate of all the different animals (1 &. 87.3-4).
A narration of Enoch's ~ssumprion, however, does not appear unril 2
{Slavon~) Enodt, a late work which may contain much earlier materia~
possibly from before 70 cr.tu At its conclusion, the assumption of Enoch is
described (2 En. 67.1-3) in language and with motifs strikingly similar to the
Graeco-Roman assumpcion narrorives and, as Zwiep has shown, the Lukan
ascension stories. Uli
While En.och wu talking to his peop!e,. the Lord sent d:arlcncss onro ru earth, and
it bccamt dark and covered tM men wbo wm: $tanding with Enoc:b. And tbe ange.ls
hurried and Hhe ~nad•J gnspod Enoch and carried him up to the highett heaven,
and ttw! Lord rcccind him and m:tde him srand in from of hi.s face for etcrniry. And
the: darkness dtparted from the n rth, and ir b«ame light. And the people looked.
~nd tbcy undemood how Enoch bad been taken aw2.y. And they glorified Cod. And
they went aw:1.y into t~r homes. (lEn. ( A) 67.1-3) 1.r.
132. Citations from I (Ethiopi~) Enoch arc from G.W.E. N ickdsbu:g and J.C.
VandcrKam, 1 £noQ,: A New TrQns/ation ( MinneapOlit~: Fortress, l00-4).
133. O.S. Winrennute •trat\3.). •jubilees·. OTP, pp. l.J,S .. J-42.
U4. 5«' also C nwis Apo<;typbmt 2 and l f.n.odt 106-07, ~ Mednuelab wisiu
Paradi&c to ask Enoch w he~ Laro«h's son is legitioute. Set Zwiep, Asun$iM~ pp.
4748.
135. C. Mttrich., •R«ent Srud.ies in tbt Slavonie Boolt of Enodt', JSP 9 41991), pp.
3~2; Zwicp, A~, p. 49.
136. Zwiepoudine$lht Umiluitits ~rween 2 EN. (A) 67.1-l and tbt Lukan ascension
narntives aod c:ooclt.Kiet that d1q rcprnent independent tradibow ~~med oo a1) Qt~~
lished rwr~tive scbtme (Asc.msion, -49-51).
137. F.L Ande- (tn.,..), '2 (SI•von;., Apoc•lypst oij &och', OTP, pp. 1.91- 213.
72 Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Go•pel Q
Encxh is exalted to the presence of the lord, as in the Hebrew of Sir. 49.14,
according to which he w~s •taken up within'. In mher early sourtes his post-
assumption place of residence is Eden Uub. 4.2J-26; compare 1 En. 60.23),
Parwaim or Paradise (1Qap Genu 2.19-23), or among the angels at the end
of the earth (1 En. 106.7-8). The assumption of Enoch in 2 Eno<h is not
uniformly •bodily' however: Emx:h apparently disappears from view in 2
En<><h 67, but 2 En.(/) 22.8 describes Enoch·s 'extraction' from his earthly
*
d oth.ing. 13
More highly developed fortn• of Enoch's exaltation to the preience of God
a re found in the Similitud.s of En<><h (1 En<><h 37-71) and in 3 (Hebrew)
Enoch. In rhe latter text, Enoch is transformed, after his assumption, into
a n enormous angd named Metatron and s itS on a hea venly throne (3 Enoch
6- 10). Enoch (Merarcon) is also called 'Prince of the Divine Presence' (3
En. 1.9, etc.) and even 'the Lesser YHWH' (12.S).m Of grc.ater interest
are the Similitudt.s, which were probably composed in the first century CE
(or somewhat earlier)."0 In • difficult passage ( 1 Enoch 70-71 ), the fina l
assumption of Enoch is narrated - 1hree times., acrually, at 1 E.n. 70.1-2, 71. 1
and 7 1.5- (rom £noch,s poim of view. 1• 1
The crucial issue is Enoch's status after his assumption in the Similitudes.
'That Son of man', an exalted heavenly be.ing who figures prominently
throughout rbc work (also called Chosen One, Righteous One, and Messiah),
is apparently identified in rheie clooing chapters as Enoch himself. This is
problematic: it seems unlikely that this was intended elsewhere in rhe work,
nor is there a hint that Enoch ls .some kind of earthly manifestation of the
(probably pre-cxistem 1"'1} Son of man. 143 The distinction between Enoch
and 'that Son of man' remains de-a.r unlil 1 E.n. 71.14, where Eooch is told,
' You are that son of man who was born for righteousness, and righteousness
138. See 6orgen1 'Heaveolr As«nt to Philo', p. 250.

139. See S. Liebcrm:ano, 'Meurron: The Meaning o( His Name aod His _Functions.. in
I. Gruenw.-ld (ed.), AIHXIdyptic tJnd M,-rkabah Mystic.ism (ACJU, 14; Ldden: bril~ 1980),
pp. 235-41. Zwicp. Ascension, pp. .S l-52, argue3 th,r the idencikarioo o( Enoch with
Metatton <:aMOt be dated earlier thin Tg. Ps.·]. Geo. S.U (c...450 a).
140. Stt M. Slack, 'The M~1111 ia niJJm of the Parabl« o( Enoc:h: Their Date and
Contribution to Christological Origins', in j.H. Charlcswonh (~d.}, Tb~ Mtuiah:
Devtlcpmn.ts in 1;4rli~st )Ndaibn lind CJrritiJanity (Minneapolis: fortres&., 1982), pp.
145-68; Colliru, Apocalypt,.c /magi,wion, pp. tn-78.
1•1. Cf. LobJinlc, Himmdfahn, p. 38.
142. On d~ pre~)l:i$teooe of the Son o£ man of the S,.mil#utks, see l Lr. 48.2, 6 and
62.7. ~e also J.C. VandcrKam. •Rigbrcous ~ Messi2.h, Ch~ One, and Son of Man
io 1 Enoch 37·71', in Ol:trl.esworrh (eel.), n~ M miah, pp. 169-91 (179-8:2); Collins.,
Apo<4/yptic Imagination, pp. 18g..89.
143. VanderKam concludes that 'tht ~enti.6carioon of Enoch with tbe son of man in
7t.H is not inconstsf:ent with th,( rot of the composition· ('-RightMus One', p. 185}; d.
Collins, Apot:t~lyptic lmagintllif)n, pp. 187-91, who thiWcJ cb. ?J is red.-rtion.al
dwells on you. and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake
you.' 1....,
A number of soltJtioos to t he problem of the idemificarjoo o f Enoch with
the Son of man have been posed. Some have .s-uggested that no identification
is meant by ·son of man': it is u~d, as it is in Ezekiel, as a form of address
with no eschatc>logic;al implication (S<:c also I En. 60.10)."' Others think that
chapter 71 is a redactional addition.l~ This explains w hy Enoch•s assumpdon
is de$cribed more than once, bur not how rhe identification of Enoch with
' thar Son of man' happened in the fi rst place, either here or in later sources
(J Enoch and Tg. Ps.·J. Gen. 5.26). VaoderKam has provocatively argued
that the identification was made because the Son of mao in the Similitudes
is a representative figure, rhe heavenly counterpart o f the community of the
righteous. Enoch. the prototype of rig.btwusness., in 1 Enoch 1 1 becomes
o ne with hls heavenly counte-rpart when he is assumed tO heavenly glory.
VandtrKam views the Enochic Son of man 6gure as ~n amal,gotm of other
'messianic' biblical figures, in parcicular the ~rvant of 2 Isaiah and t he
'one like a human being• from Daniel 7. He therefore sees a hint of the
identi6eation already in the Book of the Watchers (I Enoch 14), where Enoch
is described in terms reminiscent of Daniel 7.141 John Collins argues similarly,
bur rnore tentatively, th;ar Enoch, as the prewernincnr righteous person and as
one who shares the Son of man's revelatory role-, takes his place with (not as}
the: Son o f man, as the first tO receive tht: destiny of tht: righteous (see 1 En.
62 .14).l•t Whether or not jc can be maintained that Eooc:h is idenri6ed with
the Son of man in the Similitudes, at rhe very least f.nC)C:h at his assumption
becomes enlted to the presence of che Son of man and the Lord of the
Spiri<S (I En. 70.1) and becomes che heavenly paradigm and dest iny of the
righteous on earth: "And all will walk on your path since righteousness will
never forsake you; with you wiJJ be their dwdling and with you, t heir lot,
and f-rom you they will nor be separa[ed forever and forever and ever' (1 En.
7 1.16). The next verse re-er.nphasiz.e5 tbe connection between Enoch and
the Son of man, but shifu to the third person, possibly indicating that it is
a later additi.o n. I Enoch 7~71 is probably the most !triking example in
1-44. A textuaJ probltm at J En. 70.1 should be noted: one manuseripc omiu the
Ethiopie word •tn rhe p.menee of" (beldba.ru), giving the reading "the name of that Son
o( man wu raised aloft ... to the Lord of Spirits'. ln this case: an ickmification betwccn
Enoch and the Son of man i11 al.rudr implied at the bea;innlng of 1 P..tt()C), 70. ~ M. CaJtey,
·n. u.. of the Tenn ·s.n ol Mao• m the Simmtu<Je. of Eoocb', }S/1 (19761, pp. 1-29
(25-2~}.
145. Stt, for insta~ E. Isaac, '1 (Echiopic Apocalypse of) EM<:h', OTP, pp. I.S-89
(I.SOn. t}.
J46. Sec, for inu.ance-. C.C. Caragounis, 1'bc So" of Mtm (WUNT, 2J.l8; TUbingcn:
Mohr Siebeek, 1986), pp. 9~9 4, 11 ~12 n. 121. Zwiep wooden wbcther 'tht- present
(post..Ch.ristLan!) Etb.iopic tat is a fajthful reprcxh~tion of i~ (Semitic) V&rl4g.' (AJ.Ctftlion,
p. S4).
147, VanderKam, 'Righteou!> Qoe·, pp. 18'1-83.
148. Collios,Apo<Aiypticlm4g...tiooo, pp. 190-9 1.
74 Post-Morum Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
early jewish literature of the connection between assumption and exaltation

or eschatologic:al funetion. 1·"'
3. Elijah
The assumption of Elijah (2 Kgs 2.1-18) is the only aosumption narrative

in the Hebrew Bible. Many of the characteristic fearures of assumption
narratives observed occur here: the onJooker's point of view (Elisha);
foreknowledge (2.3, 5, 9); media of assumption (a whirlwind and a chariot
and horse< of fire, 2.11); bodily disappearance expressed with 'nOt ~eing'
language (<cx"1 ooul&v autO. iT1, 2.12 LXX); and unsuccessful search (2.16·
18). " 0 ln the Hebrew, the verb for Elijah's assumption is np? (2.?-1 0), as in
Gen. S.24. The Septuagint translates np? here with avaAa~IKil (2.9-11).
Zwiep says the phrase .:.S •is tov oiipavbv (2 Kgs 2.1 , 11 LXX) indicates
the translator's reluctance tO express the view that Elijah was taken up into
heaven.u 1
Other sourc;es also appear retic:em ro make explicit the location of the
post-assumption Elijab.m josephus says only that Elijah disappeared
(a~vioO.,, Ant. 9.28), and says of both Blijah and Enoch that they became
invisible (yoyovaOIV a~vils ). James Tabor thinks Josephus uses disap-
pearance language here~ instead of his usual verb (civaxc.:~pic..>, to return to
the divinity"'), to avoid suggesting tbat Elijah was given an honour that
Moses was not. 1.s. Christophel:' Bcgg, howe~o•cr, rightly notes that O.¢>ovi~w
and related language would signal to 'a cultivated pagan reader' that Elijah
was assumed in a way that cXvaxCtlpiQ would not. 1SS Philo merulons Elijah's
assumption only in connection with Enoch -.Elijah, along with Enoch and
' the protopropher' (viz., Moses), had been taken up co God without dying.u•
Ph.ilo s.ay5 nothing about Elijah•a presence in heaven except that he followed
Enoch 'on high from eanh to heaven at the appearanc~t of the divine counte..
nanee' (Q""'"· in Gen. 1.86). 157
H9. See ZcUe.r; 'Entruc:kung', p. Sl?, wbo saw Q 13¥35 i.o light of tbe conntetioo
berwetn Enoch•, at~•umption J.nd hii in.\UIIation as Son of man in this text.
1$0. Sec- LohJink, Him.,l(ahrt, pp. S1..S9. For a comprehmsiYe analysis, we Scbmin,
LJtrUc:iwna- Au/n4hrM- Himme.lfohrt, pp. 4?-151.
151. Zwiep, Atamfon. p. 60.
152. Zwitp, As~ pp. 61,63 n. -4.
JS3. S<e Ant. US (F.noeh~ 3.96 and 4.326 (Mo...).
154. ~e J.D. Tlbor, '"'Retwning to the Divinity"': j ouphus•s Portrayal of tht
o ;,.ppoua""" ol &oeh, El;jah, aJ>d M-·. JBL 108 (1.989), PI'• 225-38 (228-29).
US . C. 8egg, '"josephus'$ Portnyal of the Di.sappeu:ancn of Enoch, £1ij~ and
Mosa"'1Some Obstrvations',}BL 109 (1990•. pp. 691- 93.
156. S<e Borgen, ·H.. vco.ly A.ccur in Philo", p. 2>49.
IS?. 'fraa&. Mamas. La... Tbctkbn:w of Sir. U.t4, which says that 'Few oo earth bavc
been such as Enoch; he too was taken up within•, might imply tfu;t £Jjjo1h it being QOWtted
log<rh« w;lb &O<b.
However, the COitVietion that Elijah had bee.n ra..ken up and prderved
in heaven gave rise to rhe belief that he would recurn. Although many
.eholars bold Mal. 3.23-24 to he an addition to Malachi,'" it is still an
early expression of this view; Sir. 48.9-10 also connects EJijah's assumption
explicitly ro his furure escharological role. The Animal Apocalyp~ describes
allegorically how of all the prophel$ who are chosen and sent, and then killed
by Israel, one- presumably Elijah -escapes because 'the Lord of the sheep
saved ir from rhe hands of rhe sheep and brougbr ir up rome [Enoch] and
made ir dwell (rhere)' (1 En. 89.52). Elijah is probably olso the ram who
appeatS with Enoch before rhe judgment (90.31). 4 Ezra 6.26 has Elijah
in mind as being among 1those who were taken up, who rrom their birth
have not ta-5ted death'. These are seen by those who remain after the end
of the age, but it is not cetta.in what kind of eschatologtcal role, if any, 4
Ezra envisions for them. This might be a muted reference to the tradition,
discussed below* that E.noch and Elijah would return tQgether to do battle
with an eschatologic;~l adversary.
4. Moses'$'
Despite Ehe plain de$Cripdon o( his death in Deuc. 34.1 ~8, speculation
concetnjng Moses' assumption arose, probably because oJ the mystery
surrour'lding his death and burial (Oeut. 34.5 ).1~ The document known
as rhe Assumptio Mosis (the Testament of Moses) is of little help, for its
ending i.s missing, 161 and fragmentary citations indicart that it narrated an
of MQISes' soul) not his assumption. 1f l Thus a tradition concC(Oing the
Ol$CC-Ot
assumption of Moses can only be inferred from sources which are hesitant,
vague. or late, 10 or from other sources that suggest a future return of
1$8. S« A.B. Hill, Mol4t.hi: A New Tr.:ms.Lt#on witb introduction onJ CommmUn)•
tAB.lSD; New York: Doubleth.y. 1998). pp. 36:)--66 (or discussion and survey of schol-
2nhip.
JS9. Jewish traditi-on understood M05e:S' a!ICCnt of Mount Sinai a.s 1 heavenly J~5Cent
whkh resulted in a (propetly qualifitod) dti6e2tion (e.g.,. Philo, Vit. Mos. J. l$8). See VI.A.
Medts, "f'h.e Propltet·Killg: Mo.su TrtJtlitions Dnd th~ Johannim Chmlology (NovTS1.1p, 14;
Ltideo.: Brill, 1967), pp. 3$4-71; HiauneHarb, Asunt to H~4vm, p. 49; P. Borgen, 'Moses.,
Jesw, and the Roman E.mpcror. Obsen·arions in Philo's Writings and the R~datioo of
)oho', NovT 38 (t9%f. pp. H5- 59 (1511-52).
160. Loh6nk, Hi~lfahn, p. 62.
161. Sc:c J. Tr()n'lp (eel. Jnd fta!t$..), 'l'IK A.$su.rnption of Mt>Sd: A Critias/ Edition witb
Comm..ot"'Y tSvrP, 10; u-;c~= E.). Brill, 1?93), pp. 27~5 .
162. juDe: 9 refers ro the dispuu owr the body of Moses, and Ckm. Al-ex., Strom.
6.132.2 refers ro rhe 'double M0$1eS' being 'ulu:n away' (irYa}.a:IJ~a~\1011'): 'one who
{Wfllf) with the angels, and the other who was deigned wonhy tO be buried in the ravines'
(era... Tromp, .w.mptio• of Moses, p. 283).
163. Oo latt.r sourca.. seeK. Hucker and P. Scb.iftt, "Nachbibliscbe Traditiooco vom
Tod des Mosco', ;n 0 . Bet>, et a.l . (e<k.),J<M~>ho.s·Shuli<n (Fe<tKhrik O. M~h.l; G<lrri"S<ft'
Van<knhe>«k & lluprech~ 197~), pp. 1~7-7~ ( 16~~. 170-7~ ).
76 Posi'Morlem Vindication of]esot.S in the Sayings Gospel Q
Moses, as will be seen below. 164 Philo is the earliest writer to meorioo Moses'
assumption. Although he states in one text that Moses died and was buried
by immortar powtrs (Vit. Mos. 2.29 1), in Quoe.st. in Cen. 1.86 he considers
Moses (the 'prot.o prophet') to have mer the same end as Enoch and Elijah.
As already seen, in t hat text he describes bodily disappear3nce but interprets
it as a tnosfcr 'from a sensible and \'itibte plact. to an incorporeal and intel-
ligible form. Elsewhere he appears to repeat this view:
('W]hen Moses was about to die we do not hear- of him 'lo1Vifl&' or 'being added'
like those others. No room in him for addiltS or ~k i ng ~w~y. But through dle Word
of 1ht Su.preme Cau.se he is w mslated ii.Jtnxwlannatt. eveo through that Word by
which also the whole uni..·erse was formed. tSat'r. J.8t 1 ~
Peder Borgen thinks Philo knows rwo different c.radicion.s, one about Moses-'
death and one about his assumpcion. 1"
j osephus ls somewhat clearer in Atlt. 4.326, although this t.ext is
ambivalent. This- description of the end of Moses is similar in marly ways to
Gracco-Roman assumpcion narratives. 10i
And wbile hL' b3de fatewcll co EJeazar a nd Joshua ana was ye:r communing with
them, a cloud o! <~sudden ~ed upol'l biro and be disappeared in :a r<~vine (Q:~vi
~ETal t:aTil 1wos ~payyos). But he has wrinen of himself in the $1cred books 1~1
he died, for fear Jes.t they sh<luld venture to say that by reason of b.is surpassing vi.rtue
he had gone b3ck to the: Dciry (npOs TO 6tiov aUTOv Ctva)((o>pl}oa!).1611
It is unclear whether josephus thought this c redible. Tabor thinks Josephus is

reporting a tradition he is not inclined to take seriously, and suggests that •we
take his line about Moses not ... returning to the divinity'" ... as a conscious
resistance to such contemporary evaluations of other extraordinary figures,
whether that of Philo of Moses, the. Christians of Jc$us or Dionysius of
Aeneas and Ro muJus'.l" In Begg,s opinion, o n t he other hand., josephus
believes that ' Moses actually did unde.rgo an [assump[ion]' but emphasi2.es
164. As ZwM!:p noctt, MO$t$' ap~rance at the Ttant>6guutioo (Mk 9.Z...10 and
puallt!s) with Elijah •implie!i h.is previOI.L~ rapture inro hea ..-en' fAsansion. p. 70).
165. Trans. Colson and Whitakt<r,. LCL. The verb here ii ~navlcnruu, which mearuo
'remove from biJ or the:it country' (50 l.SJ). 5« Sorgen, 'HUivtnt)' Ascent in Philo', p.
2SI.
166. 8otgen, 'Ht2vt:nly Ascent in PhiJo', pp. 249-S I, who citn Midr& Hdg·Gdd()/ J
u .a do~ p.act21k l to Qu.:u::St. fn Gm. 1.86.
167. Lob.6nk, Himmd(ohrl, pp. 62..64; Tabot, 'Returning to the Divinity', pp. 226-30,
237- 38; 2wiep. AscmsJon, pp. 67- 69.
168. josephus, Ant. 4.326 (trans. Thackeray, lCL);j05C'pbus also uses U¢~avf~w in Ant.
4.323.
169. Tabor, 'Returning to the Divinity", p. :237; see aJso Ha.aekcr and Schi(er,
'Nachbibliscbc Traditio~n-', p. 150; and Tal ~tt. 'lmmonals', pp. 425, 430, wh¢ thinb
Josephw and Philo both balk ac the idea of his assumption because it woold sugg<sr his
becoming ao immortal.
Moses• char;:~cteristic humilicy: he would $000tr write that he died than have
anyone venerate him a.s a dc:ity. 110 This s«:ms more likely, espec-ially since
j osephus writes earlie.r in the narrative that Moses was about to disappear
{Ant. 4.323). Yet he is dearly more cautious than Philo concerning Moses'
divlnicy.
5. Other Figu·res
A number or sources refer to the eschatological ret urn of 6gures who

{presumably) have been preserved in heaven after their assumption. Although
principally Enoch and Elijah, and sometimes Moses, a re. in view, some
secondary figures. Ez:r01 and Phinchas fo r instance, are told that they would
join a group who would return at the a ppointed time. ln 4 EzrtJ (lace lst
c. CE~, Ezra le.ams that he would remain in the company of t hos.e who had
been assumed like him 'until the times are ended' {4 Ezra 14.9). The rerurn
to e.ar'th is a lso forerold:
' It M\-all be tb3t whoever rem3ins 2fter 211 that I have foretold to you sh~ll be. tivtd
and shall sec mr salvation and the <"nd of my world. And they shall Stt those who
were t2kt:n up, who from their birth have: 1)01 h~od death; and me hc:art of the:
e2nh '1: ioh:thit3ntS s h:tll ~ ch2nged :tod convened to ;11 different spirir.' (4 f-zra
6.25-261
Here they rerurn, apparel\t)y, to restore and convert the world .

Phinehas the son of Elt.oazar the priest is told, ac<.:ording ro the:: Libtr
Antiquitatum Biblicarum (1st c. C£), that be will join chose who before
him were lifted up; God says that at a future time he will make them all
come, presumably back to canh, where they will taste death (LAB 48.1 ).
A$ Zwiep notes~ the plural here mighc imply Enoch and Moses if cbefore' is
raken chronologically.'" The reference to the death of those who had been
;Jssumc::d after their future appearance is unusual, and may have in mind the
tradition(s). rdlecred in Rev. 11.3-13 and other sources, about the murdered
witnesses. m
Nothing in Rev. 11.3-1J suggests, however, that the two witnesses have
come from heaven, though they can be identified as Moses (who turn$ the
watersro blood and strikes the eanh with plagues, Rev. 11.6) and Elijah (who
1?0. &gg. 'Some O bservations•, p. 692; similatly Zwie-p, A,$t:~n$kln0 p. 69; d. A.

Yarbro Collins, 'Apo~osis :tnd ~urrccrjon·, in P. Sorgen aod S. Give-non (cds.), TIH N.w
TrU.tJment anJ H~llmdtic]udaiSm fPt:abody, MA: Hmclrick$00, 1997), pp. 88-100 HIS aDd
n. 36).
171. Zwlep. Asunsion., p. 7$.
172. S«: M. 8l3ck, 'The ·Two W'itne$ses'" of Rev J1:3f in Jewish and C hristian
Apocalyptic Tradition', in W..D. Davies and C.K. Barrett (eds.), Donwm GentiHdum
(Fc:5t$Chrih D. Daube; Oxf()td: Cbtc:ndon. 1978}, pp. 227-37 ( 2J2t4
78 Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
de$troys with 6re and shun the heavens, vv. 5 and 6). 17J: Their ;Jppearanc.e m
do battle against the Beast is probably their return to earth from heaven. The
cxpect3tlon of an eschatOlogical return of Elijah is well known,11.. but there
are also a few texts that look ahead to a return of Mo$tS (or a prophet like
Moses' ") together with Elijah. The clearesr is Deut. Rab. 3.17:
!God) added: ·M~. I swear to you, u you de\·ottd your Life to their ~rvic:c: io thi~
world, so roo lo the time to oocoe when I being Elijah, tbt prophet, unto them~ rhe
fiNO of you shall come togetMr.'17'
Such a tr•dition may lie behind the appearance of Mo"'' rogerhet with Elijah
at rhe Transfiguration (Mk 9.4 par. Mt. 17.3; Lk. 9.30). David Aune suggests
that t he author of this un.it in Revelation 11 adapted an existing tradition
about Enoch and Elijah., and avoided naming the witnesses, since 'paralJel
texts regularly nam~ Enoch and Elijah as the two eschatolOgical prophets
who will return ot the end of the age'. 117
An t-.arHer rext that has Enoch and Elijah reruming together is tht Enochic
Animal Apocalypse: the angels who brought Enoch up set him and the ram
holding on•o him (Elijah) in the midst of the sheep prior to tlle judgment (l
En. 90.31 ), 17' possibly to function as wirnesses.'" The C<>ptiG Apocalypse of
Elijah, a document of uncertain date (2nd to 4th c. CE) which may at points
be based upon carHer jewish materials., 110 describes a rerum of Enoch and
Elijah (Copt. Apoc. Elij. 4.7-19) that is strikingly similar to the appearance
of the unnamed wimesscs in Revelation u.m Lactantius also knows a
173. See R.H. C~rlet, A Critie414nJ Extgfflc.al ~tary 011 t~ R~larion o(S$.
}olm (ICC'..; 2 vols..; Edinburgh: T&TCiarlc, 1920), pp. 1.281-82; Black, •Two Witnes:Se$•,
p.l27; D.E. Auoc, RetJ¥1Rtion 6-16 (WBC, 52.8; Nashville: Thomas Nclso~ 1998J, pp. 600,
613-16.
174. Mal. 4.S; SiL 48.10; Mk 9.11.
175. Zwiep eorrccdy nous tlut the expectation o( MoKS' ~:SChatol<>gical recum may
ba\'C ~ intc:rcban.geable with the expectatiOn of a prophet lilu Most:s (Asunsi<ln, pp.
70-71).
176. Trans. j. Rabbinowitz.. Midrosh Rabbah: J'>e.ttJnonomy (cd. H. Frudm~n :and
M. Simon; london: So!)cino, 1974). ~also Sifrc 355; Tg. Ps.•). Oeut. 33.21; 'At· B~:r. 67
(cited by Zwicp, ~ir.m~ p. ?0 n. 4).
177. AW1Ct RQ.otlation, p. 2.61.0. 61.-dc thought Rev. 11.3-13 is 'almost certainly a
Chrisrianiud \'et~ion of a still older jtwish Autichrisc myth' ('Two Witnc:$Se$•, p. 226).
178. Chi.cles, Rn1!.1atM'>n, p. 1.281; Black, 'Two Witnf!'Sscs', pp. 227- 29.
179. R.H. Ch:~.rle$, TM Book of £.n0<b {Oxford: Oartndon. 1893)_. p. 215. notrs that
thl$ rtferenoe roay be a later additioo.
180. o.s. Wint<nnuce. 'Ap«olrpse of Elijoh'. OTP, pp. z.nl-53 (n9-30); J.-M.
R.osmsriehJ (eel. and ua.os.), L"Apoaslyps~ d'l./ie: lntroduai<m_, trilduakm. et nOks (Textts
er Erudet pour tetVir li l"histoire du jud.1'LWe intene3Umcotaire. 1; Paris: P. Geurhncr. 1972~
pp. 7$-76.
181. Aune, R~tion, p. 2.$89. says that tb: only clear instance of 'd<pmclt:OCC" of
Apoc:. S.liiah 4.6-19 oo Rev 1 t.J-13' is that W wimcsscs are murde~d and not buried; 'this
similaritY is b;~.s;.ed on a l:ner Christ~n revi11ion of a Jewil.b sourc:e'. Set: W. 8ous&ct,. "ffw
Antichrist lAgmd. A CNpkr in Christi4tr .andjewish Folltlor~ (tran.~. A.H. J<eane; l.oodoo:
similar form of this tradition; he describes the return of a single (unnamed)
figure, a 'great prophet' having all the powe" described in Rev. 11.5·6 (Div.
Jnst. 7.17). 11i Howtver the traditions may be related, and whatever thtir
origin might be, they all describe the appearance (from heaven, Copt. Apoc.
Elij. 4. 7) of a figure or figure$ who would fight against the cschatological
advers~ry, be killed, go unburied, and thtn riS(' from the dead and ascend
into heaven."' However, the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah is remarkable, first
because it describes a second return of E:noc.h and Elijah.
After cb.:sc thiog:s (tbe judgment of the shetp {.~.J()-3U1 '*), Elijt~h and En«h will
come down. 'They wiU lay down th<" fleih of the world, and they will rettive their
spitiruaJ Oesh. 'Tbty will pursU( the ton of lawlu$J'I«:n and kill him Ji.oc:e he i5 not
ablt" to .spe:ak.. (Copt. Apcu;. EIH. 5.32)
lr is odd that after having been preserved bodily in heaven Enoch and Elijah
shed their mortal Besh upon their return. Terrullian suggests that Enoch and
'Elijah wiJl destroy Antichrist by me;;~:ns of their martyrdom, and this idea may
be impHed here as well.'" lc is also unusual that a third witness, Tabitha,
appears before Enoeh and Elijah (Copt. Apoc. Elij. 4.1 ·6). Tabitha reproves
c:he 'Shameless One', c:ha..<iing b.im ro Jerusalem, where he kills her and sucks
her blood. She rises from the dead and rebukes her foe again. This is the
Tabitha whom Peter raised from the dead according to Acts 9.36.
Another o bscure texl. shows some similaritles to the uadition{s} behind
the two witnesses in Rev. 11.3·13 and in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah.
A Coptic: Enoch apOCryphon, known only from one manu$Cript, mentions
Tabitha as being among those taken up by God. In this text, a youog Enoc:b
enquires of his sister Sibyl~ a prophetess, whether he wiU be tht only one
who will experience assumption, and Sibyl names Elija.b and Tabitha.J*6
In his discussion of chis text, Birger Pearson suggests that both this Enoch
Hutchinson &: <"..o.• 1896), pp. 203-l 1; j.M. NUnd, 'Zum Schicksal der edarologischen
Propbctt:n', BZ 20 (1976), pp. $9-94; R.J. &uckh<tm. 'Enoch and £li jah in th«: Coptit:
A~ l yptt: o( Elij:~.b', in E.A. livingnoM (ed.), S~Nditl PMristit:4 l612 fTU, 129; Serlin:
1\bdnn;,, 198.5), pp. 69·76.
182. Aune, Rn.-ellllicm, pp. 2.591-92.
183. Copt. Ap~. EL';, 4. 19 does not cxpli<eidy ~ribc their <t~i<Nt: 'On t hat day
they will shout up to heavel'l as they shiM white aUt~ people and aU the: world .s« them.'
184. Soc: lEn. 90.20-27, wbtre tM iudgmen1 of thesbc:.ep is a.lso the- roat~:xt lor the
return oi Enoch and Elijah (8bek, 'Two Witnti$1!S'. p. 229).
l85. 'Enoch no doubt was translated. and -SQ wu Elijah; ooc: did they cxp«:ri«:~ d«::t.th:
lt was Jl'O"tp<')ned, ~nd only po...:rporw:d, most ceminly: they ate ttSCI'YW for tbt" s.ufft"riog of
death, that by thc:it blood they mily «:xting1.1ish Atltichrl$1' (Tenullian. d, .tmimll SO; trans.
ANFl.
186. &.A. Pt2l'l()o, 'The P""trrpolU MOfptl Fugmenrs of a ('.optic f:noch Apocrypboo',
1n G. Niclcdsburg (eci.J~ Studi.e1 on lh• Ta"'~nt of Abraham CSBLSCS, 6; Miq,C)ul1, MT:
Seholus., 1976), pp. 227-831235, 271).
80 Post-Mortem Vindicafion of)esu• in the Sayings Gospel Q
apacryphon and the Arabic version of the History of joseph"' (which names
Tabitha and Sibyl as wimcsses with Enoch and Elijah against the Antichrist)
represent expansions of rhe tradition rhar Tabitha was to be an opponent of
the 'Shameless One'. Possibly It was because of her role • longside Eooch and
Elijah in the Coptic llpocai)'(Jse of Elijah that s he was later thought of as
having been taken into heaven, 'since her subsequent death is not recorded in
Acts'. 1" This could be an ins-ranee of an assumption legend growing out of a
tradition about someone's eschatological role, rather than vic;:c: versa.
Earlier examples of this occur in 4 Ez·ra and 2 Baruch, where borh apoca ~
Jypric seers receive foreknowledge of their assumptions. In the seventh vision
of 4 Eua, God tells Eu11 to make preparations for the end, and reveals his
fate to him:
'lay up in your bean che signs that I have shown you, the dreams that you have
.and the interpre~tions rou have heard; For you t:batl be taken up hor:n among
$CC'O,
hum:tnldnd. and hencefonh you WU lh·e with my Son and with tbosc who au like
you, until the rimes are eoded.... Now, therefore set your house iD order. and .ceprove
your p~plc; comfon the lowly among th.rot, :and instruCt those tb.at arr w~.' ( 4
fu• 14.8-9, 13 NRSVJ
The author of 4 Ezra considers thjs seer ro be worthy of equal d igniry to

Eoocb and Elijah ('those who are like you'), being kepr in the presence of
the Messiah ('my Sou'} until the end of rime. Ezra asks permission w write
down the revelations he has rcc;cived, and Cod 'ells him to write for fo ny
days. Both Lohfink and Zwiep see in this pattern a signi6<:ant an-alogy to the:
L.ukan asctnsion storit'S (see Acts 1.3). uw Ezra's assumption is narrated in
an ending to 4 Ezra 14 found in the Syriac, Ethiopic, Armenian, and Arabic
versions."11 h reads: 'At that rime Ezra was caught up, and taken tO the place
of those who are like him, after he had wrirrcn all these things. And he was
called the Scribe of the knowledge of the Most High for ever and ever.''" As
already noted, 4 Ezra 4.10 ('until chc times are ended') suggests that Ez.ra•s
time in heaven i!> limited until hi$ eschatological retu.rn. 1n
187. J.K. Elliott, The A.pocryph.,d New Testam,.r~t: A Collection of Apocryphal

Christitln l,.itndture in tl1f English TranJ.Id.liOn. (OxJ()rd: Cl~ rendon. 1993}, pp. 11<4- JS,
.summarir.es the Arabic text; for tbc Coptic, sec-S. Mort'nz, D~ Cescb;chte 11011 )osf'Pb dmt
Zimmermann (lU, $6; Btrlin: Akademie. 19St). The CotHlc text Cfrum wbicb it appean the
Arabic was translated) dOtS nor contain the: references ro Sibyl :md 'rabith3; stoe F. Robi.ruon
(cd. and ttans.~ Copri< Apoo-yphal GO<pds (Texts and Stud;., 4.2; Cambridge: Cambridg<
Univeniry Press. 1896), p. 229.
188. P..n<>n, 'Copri< Enoch ApO<J)'phoo', p. 242.
189. Lohfink,. Hitn!1ttlf4brt, p. 183; Zwiep, Asansiott, p. 72.
190. M.E. S«onc, Fourth E.ua: A Commnataryf.m the &o.lt ofFourth Wa (Hennenei..a.t
Mintw!apoli': Fonreu, 1990), p. 4•1: 'the textual cvidme< is adequate to show that the
conclwion of 1M c.ht,ptcr i.s part of tbt origlnal rext•.
191 . Trans. NRSV, i.n te:n~tical OOk tO2 &d. 14.48, £ua•s d~th iJ dcKribc:d in Glt.
Apoc. Ezra 6-7.
192. See M.E. Stone. •eoMreooe: and l.n~istcnq io the Apocalypses: The Cast of
"Tlu: End" in 4llzra',]BL 102 (19831, pp. 229-43 1240).
Similarly, 2 Baru<h (<.100 CE) bas an assumption for itS seer. 'The factthat
both books claim an usumption for its main character is significant in itSel(,
as it demonsmnes the rendency to "convcntio.nalisc,. the rapture·preser-
vation scheme.•.,) In 2 Bar. 76. 1~5, Baruch learns of his assumption, and bis
task of iusrrucring r.hc people in the intervening rime:, from the imerpreting
angel: •For you will s\uely depart from this wocld., nevenheltss not to death
but to be kept unto the end of rimes' (76.2; a lso 48.30). 1" Baruch •lso is
given forty d3ys co 'instruct the people ... so that they may learn lest they
die in the last rimes' (76.S). Other passages in 2 8arucl1 foresee his role as
witness in the eschatologic;al judgment (13.3; 25.1 ).
There was a similar tradition concc:.ming Phinc:has, son of Eleaur the
priest. In the Uber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, which gives an expanded
accoonr of the e9entS of Judges 19-20, Phinehas, apparently at t he end of
an exceedingly long career (see Exod. 6.25; N um. 25 .1·13; Judg. 20.28),
rec.ei..·es advance news of his as.s umption. Cod tells hirn that he will be fed
by his eagle o n the mountain in Danet>en, and char he will be able ro shut the
heaven& with a word. Then, •aftetward you will be lifted up into the place
where those who were before you were li fted up, and you will be thr:re until
I remember the world. Then I wi11 make you aU come, and you will raste
whar is dearh' (LAB 48.1 ). m The similarities between Phineh..as and FJijah
are ~viking, and although later tradition apparently identified the rwo. it is
unclear whether this identification is present alread)• here. 1~
2 Enoch 71-72 relates bizarre <:in;umsta nces surrounding t he bi_rth and
removal o f Melchizedelc. The child, nephew of Noah. is translated to Eden
in order to be spared from tbe flood (2 Erux;h 72, both recensions). Although
a number of familiar themes occur here - a period o f forty days, a divine
removal, and preservation for a future role (as a priest: 2 En. 71.29, 37, both
recensions) - Melchizedek,s expected role is nor escharologjcaJ. 1 SO~
6. 111e "Righteous 0"'' in the Wisdom o{ Solomon

Language drawn from Greek textS about the 8$Sumption o f Enoch (Genesis
S LXX ere.) describes 'the righteous one' in Wis. 4. 10, 14. The rwo points of
linguistic cont;.,t :.ue the- verbs E:Uap EOTi(.) and JUTCJTi&r)IJl. Gen. 5.2 1·24 LXX
uses the verb •vap•crnc.> <Wicco .UqpoOTTJo<v"Evwx T,;i e.,;;, 'Enoch pleased
God'. The-adjective aiCtpacrr~ occurs in Wis. 4.10, and QptcrrQs in v. 14.
193. Zwiep, Mansion, p. 74,

194. A.F.j . Klijn {trans.), '2 (Syriac Apocaly~ of) &ruch', OT1', pp. 1.615-Sl.
19$. OJ. H11ninston (traas.). · p~euOO ·Phil o', OTP, pp. 2..291-Jn.
196. So Zwit"p, AsumHm, p. 74, Soe for t"xampk Origen, in Joh. 6.1; .s« al.o R.
Hayward. •Phinebu .. The Sa-!l'lt i$ Elijah: The Origin of a. JUbbin.ic Tr#ctition\ ))$ 29
(1978), pp. 22-38. A. Spiro, 'Th< As«nsion of Phin<la s·, PMf!t 22 (1953), pp. 91- 114,
thinks the Msumption of Pbioehlls h;~:d it$ origins in 'Judac::o-Samarit.nn pol=ics' nbou:r the
~i timation of priestnood.
197. C{. Zwiep, A.satts.io,, p. 76.
82 Post-Morlflm Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Mt-raTI9r}~o alsooc:curs in borh Gen. 5.24 LXX and Wis. 4.JO."'The language
does not refer ro Enoch, bowc:ve~ bur to 'the righreous one'.' " Wis. 1.16-5.23
contains, interspersed with oth~r mattrials, the story of •the righteous one'
who dies as the victim of "the ungodly•, a nd then appears in a post·monem
judgmen~"" Wis. 4.7 describes the early death of this paradigmatic figure, and
v. 10 interprets his end as follows: 'being well-pleasing ro God, he was loved,
and while IJving among sinners he was uanslared' (&UcipiOT~ 6&~ yt~~\IOS
oiyami9rl <al ~Olv ~na~u ci~apTwAOlv ~tTt-rt9r}). The interVening material
(vv. 8 and 9) explains how maturity should be measured by the advancement
not of yeats but of understanding and blamdessness.201 The "righteous one" is
mentioned explicitly again in 4.16 as Oltea1os KaiJc.lv, the 'righteous one who
has died',102 at whjch pOint the reader would rec:all the murderous comopiracy
of dte ungodly against 'the righteous one' earHer in Wis. 2.10·20; 'the righteous
one' appears finally in Wis. 5.1, standing before his former oppressors.
The Wisdom of Solomon also uses aptrcl~"' (4.11), found only infrequently
as an expression for assumption in Hellenistic jewish marerials. As Lohfiok
found. thjs is a technical term for: assumprion in classical literature, but
O:pnci(w elsewhere in the Septuagint normally connotes the violent work of
robbers or wild animals.203 However, as seen above, rhis vt:rb was also used ro
express something like assumption (a sudden removal of a person by a divine
being or beings) in insr:ances of early dearh. Additionally, orher motifs which
properly belong ro the theme of early death appear in Wisdom 4 - me ideas of
being loved by God (rjyami9r), 4.10)"' and preserved from evil (4.11-14),"'
198. M. Kobreilc, The Ambiguity of Demh ;, tho Book of Wisdom H' A Sboiy of
LiWtory Strvaw~ Rn4 lnkrf"~I<Ji ion (An.Bib, U?; Rome: Pooti.ficio lsriruto 8iblico, J 99' 1),
p. 96.
199. Sclunitt, &,.;;dcwng - Aw{Pt.RbftJe - Himmei(Rhrt.. p. 184; Kolarcik, Ambiguity of
Ikath, p. 96.
200. Accorcl.ing to Seeley, this section of Wisdom i.s 'an ambivalent son of text:
pan oarntive, p;tn phito.opbical trac;t•. Sec:k-y.• 'N.an.ative. the Rigbteow Man and tlw
PIUI0$01)heto An A"'lyo;s of the Story of the Dil<aios U> Wiodocn 1- 5', JSP 7 (1990), pp.
55- 78 (63).
201. See nlso [P!uurcb,) C.mu. Apall. t7.
.202. In Nidtdsburg's opinion. 'tbc. fsingular) is ge~rk in 4.7; 4.16", but he' docs not
explain his rt:asoning (Resurrearor., lmmortaliry anJ Etnn<Jil.i{t. p. 61 n. 40).
20.3. N noted abO\'t., the usu.JI verbs lor assumption in Hellenistic Jewish writingt art:
IJ€TaTi&run and ci~Aa~. owing ro rhe.it U# in Gen. $.24 LXX :and 2 Xgs V.MO LXX,
respec.:tivelr (Lobfio.k, HimRUI(alm, p. 73).' .Ap11ci~ is used for a$$U!Uption 01 removal
fi:Yt times in the NT: Acts 8.39 (wnoval to anochtt 10C2tion); 2 Cor.. t2.2, 4 (vl"Sionary
cKperienot, p<>$$ibly nor bodily); 1 Tbess. 4.17 Ithe: OL!Mimption of the !la.inrJ)' Rev. U.S (the
assumption of the mak child).
! 04. Winston, The Wisdom o( S<Jlom()n, pp. H()-41; A. Sduoin , D4s 8J4C.h d~r
Vlftsheit: Ein Kommhf.tar (WUrtbu.rg: &htet, 1986}, pp. 66-67; Kolatcik, A.mbigw.iry of
~th, p. 96 n. 43.
l OS. Compare l5a . .S 7.1· 2.. wberc the: righteous ooe is taken awa r &om unrigbt~ousMSs
(LXX CurO yQp ll'pooc.)lfOU Ca4ndos t\pTOt 0 61carQS't. Set Zwi.tp, ASU~~sicm, p. ""'· who
thinks the assumption language in Wltdom 4 refers DQt tO En«h bu.c U) cht tight.e()US
one.
.~$S""'(Jiion in Antiquity 83
and the verb omu&., for a hasty death (4.14). In these details, Wisdom 4
shows marked $imilarity with epitaphs and consoladon literature arising from
r,he situation of an uncirnely death.lot
ThU$ allusions to texts about Enoch and themes from Hellenlstic conso·
lation materials are combint-d her~ according to Seeley, this makes sense
for an author working with two cultural •vectors•.207 Seeley documents
further uses in Wisdom 2- S of top<li from Hellenistic moral phil0$ophy;
for example, the- quick movement of the •ungodly} from hedonism to the
oppression of 'the righteous one·' (Wis. 2.9·10) is to be c:x_
plained on the basis
of 'an apparent topos in Greco-Roman moral philosophy which associates
the-pursuit of pleasure with aggressive wrongdoing•.1<l•Jn this passage, what
connects the allusions to the jewish assumption tradition wit:h the themes
from Greek consolation materials is the verb Cxprrci("', whit"h m.._kes sense in
both settings. Although (as seen above) ixpwa~c.> in the epitaphs and conso-
lation literature was always used negatively, in jewish thought assumption
was understood only in rerms of divine blessing. Hence. when Wisdom
uses apwa~()) to connote the divine pu.rposes behind the early death of 'tht
righteous one•, the acxusawry tone usually directed ac che deity in such cases
is absent. since the focus in Wisdom 4 is the good purpose of God. In this
way che author applies 3$Sumption language, normally reserved for the living
righteous taken up bodily into hea,'en, to the dead righteous one. Bcxause
'the righteous one• was pleasing to God, his early death is equated with the
divine blessing o f assumption. lot
Besides the consolatory function of assumption language in Wisdom 4,
another issue at work in the story of 'the- righteous one' is immortality of
the soul, as Robert j. Miller has argue.d. "' Even though Wisdom 2-S is not
a linear 'narrative', the story may be: counted among "Wisdom Tales·· th.._t
'dramaticaUy demonstrate the ultimate validiry of wisdom/righteousness by
nurating the vindication of righteou.s ~ges caught in seemin.gly hopele$$
situations, victims of the schemes of evil opponems'.' 11 In s to ries where the
206. Set, t'or instance, D. Wi.luro~ Tb~ Wisdom o(Sol()tnfOn tAB, 43; Gardtn Ciry. N'Y:
Doubled.iy. 1979). p. 140; Sc.hmitt, £ntriidc:u ng - Aufowbm• - Himm~l(t.Jhrt. p. 188, who
c:la&si6es Wii. 4.7-19 as consola-tion literature (p. 191); see aJ&o Schmitt, 'Der frilht Tod des
Gercchteo nach Wdsh 4.7-19: Ein Psalmtbema in weisheitlic~r fassuog:', in F.-L HO$S(dd
and E. Ha.1g (eds.), fr~ '"' ikr W.-iswng tks Hmw: Bc itra~ '.ll4r Th~olog~ tkr Pulmtn
(fesuchtift H. Cross; SB~ 13; Stuttgart: Katholischcs Bibdwerk, 1986). pp. 325-41.
207. Seeley, 'Narrath•c, the RigbtCOU$ Man and the Ph.ilo.sopber', p. 76.
208. Steky, 'NarraM<e, du- Rightt'Ous Man and ~ Pbjlosopher', p. 68; Stt also pp.
71- 72.
209. Stt 0 . Georgi. 'J)c.t vorpaulinische Hymnus Pbil 1,6-1 J'. in£. Dinld er led.), z~jt
~mJ Gdchi&lt (F$$Chri(t R. Suhman.n; TUbing_~: Mohr S~bec::k. 1964), pp. 26~93
(274). Ste ~1$0 Lohfink. Himtn#l(~ p. SS n. 161 (though be thOU~ht th.i&referred to the
righteOUS 'in gene:raJ'); KoUrci~ Amb;p;ty of ~4th, p. 9$.
110. R.J. Mil~ 'Immortality and Religious Identity in Wtsdom l...S\ in r~U$3-ig and
C..astelli (Ns.), Rrim48fning Christian Orifins (mtsch.ri.ft 8.L Mack; VaJJey Forge, PA:
Trinity Press International, 1996), pp. 199-213.
211. MiUer, 'lmmoruliry and Rdigiou.'lldentiry', p. 209.
84 Post-Morlmt Vindicatian of jesus in the &ryin!fs Gospel Q
sage is killed, say$ :Miller, only post·mortem vindkation is possihle.lU Thu$,

in his view, 'the immortality o f the soul in Wisdom 2-S is a wisdom tale
solution to the problem of marryrdom~.1 1 3 However, the idea of the soul's
immortality cannot account for the elevated stanas and role of 'tbe righteous
one' in Wis. 5.1·5, where he appears bdor.e his etJtwhile pers~utors in a
post-mortem judgment scene. In this passage, the ' ungodly' affirm that the
righteous one is indeed one of the sons of Cod, one of the boly ones (5.5):
those who once doubted that 'the righr:eous one' had Cod as 'Father' {Wis.
2.16b; cf. 2.13, 18) are made co eat their words. This reversal is of coune
vindicatory; but if the expressions 'sons of God' and "holy ones• mean angtllc
beings, ~the righteous one' has received a new exalted heavenly status.1H
The way 'the righteous one' appea_rs at the judgment of the ' ungodly' abo
points in this direction. The only ones who seem to be present here arc 'the
righteous o ne' and his persecutors. N<, dlvine judge is there. but the 'ungodly'
quake with fear before ' the righteous one', who stands 'with great boldnes·s
before thos- who oppressed him' (5.1).
The context of the story indicates that the 'ungodly' quake because 'the
righteous one' has been exalted tO a forensic role in the heavenly coun. Wis.
3.8 and 4 .16·17 predict this tole. The latter text reads, 'the righteous one
who has di~d will condemn the ungodly who are aliv~· (Ka TOlplvtfi 0£ Oikatos
KOlJWv TO\is ~WVT<l$ ao,~is). Possibly "the righteous one' is involved in this
condemnation only passively. ln this case, merely his vindicated presence is
sufficient to ac:cusc: and condemn 'the ungodly', for their false reasoning is
found out and murderous behaviour reversed. But ' the righteous one' who
condemns fulfils the expectation that the righteous (plural) will judge the
nations as the vicegere-nts of the Lord. Ha.$ the typical connection between
assumption a nd special eschatological function in the Jewish tradition taken
on a new ton-e here? As already seen, Wis. 4.16~17 explicidy connects the
death of 'the righteous one' with his forensic role., but this role suggests an
exalted post·morcem status as weU. God's removal of "the righteous one' - an
earl)' and unjuSt death described as an assumption - is a divine safeguard
direc:.dy connected with his role in judgment. This post·monem exaltation is
based upon the lc>g:ic which C<:>nnecced U$Umption and special eschatological
fu ncdon.2u
212. So abo Nickel.sburg. Resuneaion.lmmonoliry and E.umal Lift, p. 66.

213. Millet, 'Immortality and ReligioUt ldtntiry', p. 209. C(. Nickels.bwg. R~ti1Tta•011.
lmmort4lity a:J'Id Et4f'MI U{e, p. 88: '11iocc: immortality is a.Jn..ady the possession of the
righteous man (in Wisdom 2-5], his death is viewed u hlt ~mpcion'.
2 14. Src N iciehblll'& R.esurrutlon. Jmmorw.lity tmd Eternal Life, pp. 60-~11 and n.
37.
liS. So Georgi. 'Vorp.iu1in_i$Chc Hymnus', p. 274: "The Righteous Ooe tbt:rcfore hu
not died, but what appears to be his death is in tc:aJhy his assumption, and his :tllSumption
is synonymous witb his exal tation tO judicial and roy;al dignity and functi(m' {author~$
translation).
AJsumptron in Anliqujty 85
7. job's Children in The Testament ofJob
Post· mortem exaltation is found in a unique use of assumption in the

Testament of job (1st c. BCE o.r C£),21' where assumption language is applied
to job's dead children. Sitis-. Job•s w ife.. implores Eliph<ls to se-arch thro\tgh
the ruin$ of their house in order to recover the bones of the ch.i ldren killed
when Satan caused it <0 collaJl$e (T. Job 39.8-11). As the men leave <0 dig
through the ruins, job for:bids tbem, saying,
Mlj •a~~n •l<(i, o.J yap .Upl\om Ta na•ofa!JO'J, hn•oli ilv•M~~oav ,;;
oUpa·voUs UrrO TOO 6ruuovpyoU ToU ~aaaAEQS.
•oo nOt uouble yourselv« in vain. For you will not find roy children,
since they were taken up into heaven by the Crearor their King.' (T. Job
39.11 ·12)"'
Tho~ S<anding by express disbelief (39.13). But job tells Sitis to look to the
east, where she sees a vision of their children 'crowned with the splendour of
the heavenly one' (40.3). Consoled by lhis vision, Sitis herself dies (40.4·6).
Alchough O.vo:"aiJJ3<i:l.'W can connote soul ascent, che attendant mocifs
of unsuccessful search Uob says that their bones would not be fo und) and
exalted heavenly status indicate assumption. us This assumption is nor a
rescue from death, for earlier job says that Satan killed bis children (T. job
18.1; cf. 17.6). job•s own death, on the ocher hand, is narrated as an a seem
of the soul (52.1 ·12}, and the writing also expects a future resurrection (4.9·
1 1).21 ' H. C. C. Cavallin thought it odd 'no efforts ro harmonize these notions
have been made; the problem$ of their inter.relations does nor seern ro have
been observed' ,uo True, ic is not explained why the special honour of bodil}'
:assumption is bestowed on job's children- especially s ince j ewish tradition
hesitates to do so for any but the mosr worthy candidates. Possibly here, as
with ~the righr.eous one:' in the WisdQm of Solomon, the assumption motif
was suggested to the author by the early, untimely death of job>s children. ln
this case, a spedal vindication ofjob•s children may alro have seemed appro·
priate, since their death resulted from a malevolent being's interference.
216. According t() R.P. SpittJet (tr:.ns.), 'Testament ofj()b', OTP, pp. 1.8.29-68 ( 1.83~
be d.&t~ with more (:(:rtainty thilD this.
34), the tCJCt (:I.OD0t
217. Ctcdt kxt from S.P. B.rook and J.·C. Picard (cds. )~ Test~ lobi; Apot:4iypsi.s
Bar-uc:hi trM« {PVTG,, 1: leiden: Brill, 1967); trans. SpittLer. OTP.
218. So also CavaUin, Life After Death, p. 161.
219. See also Spittl~c. 'Testamesu o( job•. p. J.868 n. ( (t.ext<ririeal nor~ on T. job
53.8 ).
220. Cavallin, Li{~ After Dttarlt, p. 162.
86 Post-Mortem Vindicatinn of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
As$umption in Early Christian Literature
The main te.xts for consideration here are rbe Lukan ascemion narratives (Lk.
24.50-53; Acts 1.9-11} and some later legt1tds conceming the assumption
of saintly Christian figures. As might be expected, Chri5tian sources tend
to combine assumption language and ideas from bmh Jewish and Graeco-
Roman milieus.
I. The llsunsion (Assumption) of jesus aecording to Lulu
The author of Luke-Acts depictS the departure of the rlsen Jesut into the
heavenly realm as an assumption (Lk. 24.50-53; Acts 1.9-ll),ut Lohfink
i howcd the numerous linguistic and forma l similarities with :usumption
narratives from both the Greek and jewish traditions.222 These include
civa.l.a~!l«~~<o> (Acts1.2, 11; also Lk. 9.51; Acu 1.22),"' thelarewell setting,
cbe mountain, the cloud, subsequent worship or praise, confirmation,
and the fo rty..day intetval. 214 The.se details a rc welJ established. What is
less certain is what Luke intended to convey with this post·re.surrection
assumption.
The separation of resurrection and assumpdon is cerrainly significant:
it suggests that Luke thought the two motifs carried different theological
meanings. Yet the two a re not mutually exclusive, at least not the way
Luke has structured things. us Although the resurrection fo r Luke has
other chris-tologica1 •results', Acts 1.11 shows that for Luke the ascension
(assumption} ol jesus installs him in heaven 10 await his eschatological
221. The wocds w;oll:wt~Pf'rO cis- T(n, ¢\,pall011 (Lk. 14.51) art' absent from "• 0 it s)"
and 11pocnMif}oavn~ oUTO~o~ (24.52) are absenr from 0 it sf. I( t.hc::se w(IC'ds w~re nOt origi~J,
then U.. 2o4.SO..S3 did noc describe an as.swnption bul a withdrawal at the mel of a resur-
rection .tppearance. For ttxt<rirical discuMion. 5ee e$pccLaJJy Paaons. !>qamtr#, pp. 29-Sl,
and Ehrman, Ort~ C..cmupticm ofScripture, pp. 227-33 (both a.rguing for the originality
ol the short« text); and A.'W, Zwiep, 'The Text of lhe Asansion Narr.uives (luke 24.50-J;
Am 1.1-2, 9-11)'. NTS 42 ( 1996), pp. 219-44 (arguing t'or ~ tonget teXt).
22.2. Lohfink, Hlmmd{altr-4 pp. 74..79; $C'C: also P~nons., D~partur~, pp. Jl.S-49 (on
Acu 1.1-11}, and Zwiep, Asunsion, pp. 8~117.
223. The verb ci\104>Epc.:a (Lk. 24..51 ) ~n a.bo be includod, a$ well as i noi~ (A«t 1.9).
Loh6nk noted that otbcf a»umpfjoo vcrl>s, <i41ttvl,w, O..pttci~w, and ~J.S't'aTiEto~on, do not
occur in Lu:ke-Acu (Himmtl(41m, p. 76). It is uue that disappc:aranee tansuage is al»tot,
but Acts 1.9 (Koi ~.,CAn VniA<4'cv oVr<w GnO TWv c)+&a.A~o~~v o.VTWv} ~ggr:sts -something
a.long similar li.oot.
224, loh£ink. Himmcl{ahrt, pp. 74-79; also Zwiep, Asunsi<Hs, pp. 80-117.
225. 'Luke's tuts show a strange mixture oi the resurrection tradition and the
assumption tradition• {van Tilborg and Counet, A.p~~~'"'"'" tmd Diuppe4f'i#faJ, p.
195).
revtlation as the coming Son of man.22' Most commentators agree on this,

though the point is argued most forcefully by Zwiep, who contends that
luke·Acts must be read against the 'biblical-jewish raprure-preservation
paradigm' (with its connotation of an eschatologjcal role) rather than the
'Cracco-Roman rapture stories' (which normally suggest apotheosis). 1 z'
This is imponant for Zwiep's a nalysis of another central question for the
Lukan ascension stories., that of the function of assumption in relation to
Jesus' •exaltation'.
Lobfink and others have argued that Luke•s ascension stories ccaJiy
are rhe narrative expression of an idea that is in other texts connected
more directly with j esus' resurrection, that is, his exaltation.21' Z wiep,
in reaction to this~ argues that according to the Jewish 'paradigm', the
end result is not 'an act of enthronement or apotheosis', but 'preservation
to fulfil some task in the end time'. 21' At issue here is the locus (chrono-
logical and rheological) of jesus' exaltation fo r Luke. Lohnnk drew
attcndon to texts such as Acts 2.33 and 5.31, which s uggested to hi m
that there is a distinction for Luke berween resurrection and exaltation. 1 l0
In re-sponse, Zwiep not o nly argue5 exegetically fro m Luke a nd Acts~
but aJso maintains thar his sharp form~drical boundaries between the
jewis h and Gre<k 'paradigms' means there is 'no reason ro charge Luke
with having distorted or misunderstood the early apostolic pu.a ching
[which identified] jesus' resurrection and exaltation•.lJI Yet Zwiep als.o
allows that preiervarion by means o f assumption for an eschatological
role does imply exalcation in a limited sense.211 This particular debate
need nor be settled here, but ir is at least worth noting that - depending
how the question o f background is decided - Luke's ascension stOries can
provide-additional warrant for the-view that post-mortem exaltation (not
oeccssarily apotheosis) as well as special escha tological luocrion could be
connected with assumption.
226. Lohfink~ Himm,lfahrr, p. 138; Parsons, D~tl'tuu, p. 144 (though wit hout
CC'fectnQ! tO Haufe, 'f.ntruc:kuog und esdlacok>3i.u:he Fun.ltti<m•); Zwiep. As<:hrsiorr, pp.
106-7, 168-69; and Zwiep, ' Auumptus ~t in caclum: Rap~~ Heavenly Exaltation
io & rly Judaism and Luke·A~.. in F. A'·t'mllrie and H . t~htenberscr (edJ.t, Au{mubung
- R.e-su"~dion: 'JlM_Fourth 01Jtham-TUbingm Reuarch SympoPum (TUbingtn: Mohr
Si<bc<k, 2001), pp. 323-49 (34<4-45, 348-49).
227. Zwiep. A$U11.ti011) pp. lJS-16. Cf. van lilborg and Couner, AptHar.mas 11M
Disdppear41fUs, pp. 198- 200, wbo correctly note that the Graeco•Roman U!Jutbprion
uadirioo is •ital for undc:rstaoding the storice• 'readcrlr possibiJicjet' {199).
228. Lohfink, Him..,/falm, pp. 272-?S.
229. Zwicpt "AuumpruH st', p. 348; .see aJ110 Zwicp. ASU~~Sion, pp. 194-9$.
230. Lohlinl<. Hi.,.,../f.bn, p. 272.
231. Zwkpt As<.msion, p. 196.
232. Zwiep. 'Assumptut es:r>. p. 345, connect.in,g ir with a future role ratbcr dun a
prneot state.
88 Post-Mortem Vindicalion of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
2. Assumption Language itt Other NT Texum
Some standard assumption motifs occur in the description of the disap-

pearance of Mc»es and Elijah from the scene of jesus' uansfigurarion (Mk
9.2·10; Mt. 17. 1·9; Lk. 9.28-36): the obS<:uring cloud (Mk 9.7; Mt. 17.S;
Lk. 9.34}; and ino.·l5ibility lartguage (Mk 9.8, oUKhl oU~iva el&,v; Mt. 17.8,
oVIS~vo: El0ov). For Mark and Matthew, rhjs suggests that Moses- and Elijah
are figures who had experienced assumption at rhe end of their eanhly
careers, o.md who leave this scene in the same manner. But luke does not
use •not seeing' language for the disappearance of Moses and Elijah (Lk.
9.36; compare Mk 9.8), focusing instead on the presence of jesus, wbo 'was
found alone• (s:\rp!&rl' ll')ooUs ,_.ovos,
9.36). This is an interesting revt:r$31 of
the typical 'not finding' language (as in Gen. 5.24 LXX) <0 suggest that the
'day.s of his assumptiony (TCxs ~t~Epas Tiis cXuaA~*c..lS athoU} were not yet
being fu)fi)Jed (Lk. 9.51 ).
In Luke's parable of Lazarus and the rich man {Lk. 16.19-31), the rich
roan died ;~nd was buried. but Lazarus died and W:JS carried off into heaven
by angels (c.lmve)(tl~val ctiTOu UrrO T00v CtyyiAoov. v. 23).n4 What sort of
remov~l is this? Nollotnd rh inlcs this is 'a special translation to heaven,
somewhat in the tradition of that of Enoch ... and Elijah•.us Angelic esCQrt
is commoo in narratives of soul ascent, but nor in assumption stories; and
in soul ascent narratives t he burial of the body is usuaiJy narraced.m Joseph
Fitzmyer suggests chat since U.urus- was ' left unburied by human beings,
he was carried off by heavenly beings'."' Although the fare of the body of
Lazarus is unclear~ Wisdom 4-.5, whert assumption language is appljed to
the dead rigbteous ooe, might clarify the maner. Both. sources use assumption
language to contrast the different faces of the c haracters: in Wis. 4.1()..19,
233. Acts 8.39 (rhe Spirit snatching away Philip to A:zotus) and 1 Tbess. 4.15-17 (the
il5$umption of those ali,·e at Cluist's coming) will not be- consider~ here, sjna ocitbn text
~-ribt!l individwl :wumptioo uor at the end of :1. person's life. The p<mibiljry thar Muk's
empty romb s.tory (Mk 16.1·8) wa$ ()tiginaity ;n anumptlon scory was proposed by ttlas
8idcermann (•oas ltttc Crab'), and will be explored in rtlation to out eonelu•ions about Q
13.35 in Cha~r 6 below.
234. Lob£flk. 1/immtl{ahrt, p. 42, noted the sem2ntK: proximiry of *'pc.l :and irs
c:ouapOsite lo[Qls to otber asswnption t«minotogy. Luke uses 0\IO+fpc.J (Lk. 24.51) for
jtw!l' a!$Umption. besides 0va).al.l~clw.> :tnd reJ:ared urm:s (Lk. 9-.Sl ; Act$ 1.1, l J, 22). -For
awo+ej)C.), set Chariron. Chae.r. 3.3.
235. Nolland, Ltdte 9:21-18:34, p. 82.
236. Ste, fot e:x;ampk, T. A.bt. (A.) 20; T. Abr. (B) 14; T. job $2.-53. Se~ alsoloh.fink,
Hinlnf#I(Qbrl, pp• .SJ--54.
237. j. Fiumy«, TIH Gosp'l tu.eording to LuU (AB, 28-28A; 2 vol:$~ New York:
Ooubledt~y, 1981- 1985), p. 2.1JJ2.. Fo r the idea ol angelic escort. Fittmyer cite$ Hennas.
Vis. 2.2.7, Sim. 9.27.3; T. Ash. 6.4-5. A similar i-dc:a m:ty lurk behind the impersonal
u.
CnJC:tlToiJOIVin. l2.20: 50 M.D. Gou.ldet, w~: A Nnv Pllrdd.igm (JSNTSup) 20; 2 vols.;
Sbccffidd: jSOT .Prcss., 1989), p. 636; Crundm.tnn, Ewnt~IUim Mdt Ld~ p. 258. See a~
K. Grobe!, •• ... Who"' N•m< w., Nc..,.• •, NTS 10 (19641, pp. 373-82 (378).
89
assumption language is uS«! of the 'righteous one' while t he corpses of the
' ungodly' are di•honoured; in Lk. 16.22 the rich man receives the normal
treatment (burial) w hit~ Laurus rtteivM a special honour - pc:r·b:ap~ btt.aust'
(as in rhe Turammt of Job) proper burial wos not pouible for him.
Rev. 12. 1· 6, 13-17 describes a conUicr between a woman and a dtagon
who appear in heaven. The woman gives binh co a son who is "snatched
away (~prroo9rt) ro God and to his throne' before the dragon con devour him.
Messianic language drawn from Psalm 2 describes the child (Rev. 12.Sb).
The text thows some similarity to a rabbi nit tmdition about the assumption
of rhe Mmiah as a child (m. Ber. 2.Sa)."' If the rexr as it stands refers ro
the ascension of Jesus. ic is unusual that nothing is mentioned of his life or
death and, moreover, that dte assumption app(ars mocivared by the threat
o£ the dragon. "l'h.e rcn of the taJe does not dc.scribe a return of the mcsslan.ic
child, a lrho ugh his future rule of che oations is mentioned ( 12.5). Probably,
u some commentators have suggested, rhe aurhor of Revelation incorporatts
a Jewish rr:adition to whic:h he gives his own Christian inttrpretation (wbic:h
does not. howevt.r, rt.move aJI it:S anomaliest.m
J. E.arly Chmtuzr• lnstanus of .U.umption
In two nrly ChrUtian t<xts, rhe body of the murdered Zechariah di>ap-
pars in a post·monem assumption. This Z«bariah. the f01ther of John the
Baptist, appea rs to be confused with another Zccharlah who w~,s muidc:rcd
in the t<mple (2 Chron. 24.20-22; Q li.Sl ). In the l'rouvang•lium o{
james (late 2nd c:.),-Uo Zechariah is murdertd at Hc rod~s command bccaust
John hod etcaped the slaughter of the innocent$ (Prot. }as. 23.1 -9). Others
enter the sanctuary and find Uchariah'$ blood (turned tO none), but not
his corpso: •ai TO ltTr.3~a cuhoil ovx t~po• (24.9). Ronold Hock susgests
rhac the murderers disposed o£ the body 'in a n unmarked grove• ,u• but the
text itself docs not attempt any rationalizing explanation, :u some Graeco--
Roman a5Sumption reports do.!u Tbc dis.appearancc language suggests that
U:ehariah's body was taken away by God (after his murder).w
What happened to Zechariah's body it clearer in the Apocal)•f>u of P4ul
(late 4th c.).l..,. In a sc:cne which onJy survives in Coptic, Paul meets john
2JI . S.. L<>l>liM, 11.....1{4/,n. pp. 69-10. L<>ftMI< dio<u.... • s-'bly rtb>td idoo;,
2 &rt. 30. t. We me tat 0 ~.t~Kk-u ( ICe a:OO ZMcp. A.sc~. p. n n. 2).
239. Clvtlrt, ..-,p.U21;Aua<,~p. 2.4iU.
240. IU'. Hod. Th< "'f....., C<><pds ofJ-.s -' no.., IScholm' B<blo, 2; Sana
Rou, CA' Pokbadtl<, l"Sl, pp. ll-12.
241. Hock. J,.(t1f!K1 Cosp,U, p. 77; wt: also tt. Smid, Prot~W~,.gcllflm Jacohir A
eo,.,,.., (Apocrypha Novi TC$e&tnalri. 1: ANM: Van Gorcwu. 196.5), p. 16$.
242. Plu10rch. 11..... 27..5; N-.2.2; Scrviw. Am.l.~02.
24l. F..- ' not lindins'l•~l!'..., Gen. .1 .2~ l.XX; 2 ~p 2.17l.XX; T. Job J9.12;
Chariton, Cha~. J.J.
2._.. PJikltt, Apocrypb.J/ New 1'est4ff'Wnt, p. 6..4.
90 Post·Mortmt Villdiauion of jesru in the Sayings Gospel Q
the 8apriSl, his father Zechariah, and Abel (paired wirh Zechariah in Q
1t.S 1).1'1 ac,hariah says to Paul: 'I am he whom rhcy killed while I was
prnenting the offering to God; and when the angels came lor the offering.
they carried up my body to God, and no one found whe.re my body was
t~ken'. 1~ Like rhe Prot~vangeli~tm ofjtJm~s, rbis source uses •oot finding"
languasc, but makes explicit bow Z«hariah was assumtd after he died
(rhe use of angel' is reminiscent of Lk. 16.2.3 ). Neither source, howeve~
explains why Zecharia.h's body was removed, or wh:n his post rnonem 4
Status waa.
According to $0me versions of the 1\cts of john {c.Jrd c. I),'" the apostle
John exptrienced a post-monem assumption, a legend which arose possibly
owing ro jn 21.20·23. In most vet$ions of the account of John's death, his
disciples dig his grave, he climbs in, removes his garments and lays them
down as if they were bedding, and prays some words of far.ewtll and chen
lies down and gives up his spirit (1\crs oflohn l ll · IS). Augustine roporcs
a rradirion that the: apOstk W<lS not dead, but asleep in his gravr (Tr4CI. £v.
joh. 124.2). 1" Bur in later expansions of anorhu ending of the 1\ers of jo/m,
called rhe Mti41t.uis, the disciples find rhe next morning (or altu three days)
thar John's body bas disappeared, though his sandals remain. Other versiom
held that a dusr or manna with miraculous powen, stincd up by the bruth
of me sleeping aposde, poured out of the grave." '
The assumption of Mary, rhe mother of jesus, was dc>eribcd in both
namuive (from c.Sth c.) and homil<tical sowces (from e.7r:h c.) which survive
in Greek, Syriac::, Coptic, and latin. The documentary hisrory and intcrrc·
larionJhips of these sources are extremely complex, and tbe accounr.s. vary
widely in detail."' Generally, however, the legend runs as follows. As Mary's
death approaches, she is attended by the apostles, and consoled by the exalted
Christ, who bears away her soul as it leav<S her body when she dies, though
24J. The murdered Abd, also mentioned in Q 11.51, apptrtndy re..~h··ef a.n f$Chno·
losi<al funalon ocoordq to T.-Abr. (A) 13; T. Abr. (B) II, but no l<sa>d cooccrnlng IUs
anumprion exi~t~..
2~. Trona. Ellloct.II/>O<ryl>l,.J. N""' T..-.-, p. 644.
247, K. Sd.lltrdidt (u-an..~ ' Th< Act. ol john', ;, W, ~ («!.~ NnD
T r - ~ (ln... R.M. Wib<o; 2 >Ob.; J..ouH,o;llc """""""'"'John K.>o.. !'CT.
cdn,l!t91·1"J ~ pp. LU2-209 (ISS~
241. Sdlllud.<k, 'Aas ol Jolu>', p. 20<1.
24,, S.. SchllcNidt. 'Aas of lobo', pp.l04-J:,.. obo J.D. Kactdl, ' Lc t6lo de. I<=
b;bhq.... dono Ia p:nbc ct .. clmlopp<OJ<O<closl<gmd<s •poaoypba: ..... du- !ina! dr
l'tp&rc jan', A..,...,,...,...,.2J ' 198:3}~ pp. 31,_3,.
2l0. S.. M. V>o £obrocck, " "" <>rip ws dr Ia Dornr#- .U t. VWrJr. 1tMJes m.torlqou
n~r l4J trilditiofts or~ (Colkctr:d Stud~ 472; ll:roolc&Jd, VF: V1rion.lm1 1.9,5); S.C.
Mjmouni, /)onnitif)rt d ~mpt;c. h Marie: hittolr~ Ms trt~diliOrU ~imn.u (TbeolQPe
histor,qUIC, 91; Pult: Beaudx:,oe, 199S); 8.£. Oalry (f:d. and trant.), o, liN Dormitio, of
Miry: Pmt, Pt~ttUt•·e Homil~ (Cr!$Wood, NY: Sc V1adimir't., 1998); tllion., AI'OCf'fPbtM
N.w 'Tf'lt4~JMrtl, pp. 689-nl.
M<umption m Antiqwity 91
in some sources Michael or orher angels take her soul away.u-1 In many
•ourca Mary's body is buried but disappean (oometimco aft<r tbrcc daysI.'"
Thit combination of..,..] ase<:nt and post-mortem requires (in some"""""'")
that body and soul be ~united in heaven. w The concern appears tO be thar
Mary's body should not snffer corruption, but should receiv< a faU! mort
fittins ro rh< Th<OtOk<>s,"" though som«imcs thtst t<xu serve an actiological
purpose.us For the purposes of this survey, it is most imponanr that the
legends of Mary's assumption usc standard assumpcion morifs, often for the
post·monem removal of her body, which results in her heavenly exaltation.
Frequenr references to Enoch and Elijah suggest Mary's tnd wu eoMidered
to be in keeping with rradidonal characterizations of assumption.1S'
The Llf• of Symecm the Fool (7th c.) by Leontius of N.. polis nan:;~tes
an empt-y grave scenario as well.257 While Symeon•s body ls being carried
off 10 burial in the strangers' cemerery. a person convened under Symcon,5
preaching hears heavenly mU$i-c: from within his houK. but looking out
StU only rwo men carrying Symeon's body (PG 93.174"d-174Sa). He goes
and buries Symeo11 in the strangers• oemeury, but when othe.n hear about
the huve.nly mu&k. they run to the grave to exhume the body and give it
I more fitri113 buraal. '8ut when they Op<ntd tbt vave, tbty did DOt find
him (oUx Npov aVTO¥). Foe the Lord bad glorified him and ttanslattd him'
(unniSI)uv yap aliTO. ~O:cas o .,jptos; PG 93.174Sa-b)."' 'The body
l$ 1, A• in, for iNh.ncc, a homily aruibukd to bodiua of R0«1c (I.UIU- RobitbUI'l,

Coptie Apocryphol Cos~ pp. 2~ 1); and in v,t, Gt. 1982. F. Mann-, LA rlrit tU 14
Do,.ltiOft d. ~~rk (V.:tiun gnc 1912): contribution d l'hlld1 '"' otigiMI tk l'exl~~
clmft1e'IM (Colkato m.aior, Sructum 8ibl.icum Frtn¢iscanum, .lJ; Jerutakm: franci8Can,
1989).
2J2. s~.for iluttn¢e, the 'Et.nhym.i.Ac History', ~o interpolation in a bomlly of j ohn o(
Dam.ucw~ cr-a111. O:dey, Dormition, pp. 224-26. 1bt Coptic tn.dilton mainttitu a longer
interval berwctn Mary't drath a.od bt:r corport2J assumprioo; !let Elliott. ApocrypNI Nn4~
T•stllmtftt, p. "1.
2.S3. Mott Crtclc. namrive tQUIUS (e.g.., VaL Gt. 193lJ and one Syriac sourct detcribt
sueh a~CCNrio: lot thf s,.n.c 'ObscqWcs·, S« W. Wri.gbr (N. and rrana.), c;.o,._tnbfaioNs to
the A~~ l..Jin'i~tMr~ oftbe Nne Ttst4mnrt (Loodon: William• & Norprr,. JiltS•, pp.
42-oSI.
254. 1ltU;,up<...ty ...to<~ by the a.,..U.. in 1'$. M•lilo, T r - " -2 (tranL flhon,
A~ Ntw Tf#li'N'flt~ pp.. ?1~14).
255. S.. 1'$. Jolu>, Tr""""" 41-'13 (trans. Ellioa, A~ N<W T..,_.,t, p.
1071-
256. lu io the Syriac 'Tnnsina' documenr (tnns. W.;,p." C...~ pp. IS-14):
aNI u \A hocaihcs • tttibuud co ~ubos of Uriu and A.ndrtw of CrC'tc {Oaloty,
Domti:iot.., pp. 7.. aod 109)..
257. S.. O.l(nq<~ s,_,.. tb. Holy Fook r.-m.,·, 'L•f•' ood U.. '-""A.,_ Oty
(lr.nslormadoo of tbt O auic:al Huiug, 2S; Bttbley. CA: VnivtftJcy of Callfomia Press..
1996).
2st. Crcelc text £rom L Ryden, 04s Ubm du h1iJig~ N•rr.,. S.)I'MO" rot~ Lromtw
&.IOn 'Nupolll (Ac:u Univc-rslutis Upc.alieosis~ Srudia Gra«a UpNlieO&II, <4; S10<kboUn:
Altnq"itt & 'Wikttll, 1963); cited using divisions from Mignc:, P~molotM ... sm.,, f'M~.
92 Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
of Symeon (as the body of Jesus) has disappeared from the grave:, that is, it
has been taken up into heavcn.' 1" This story is interesting because Symeon
knows of his death and •glorification• (by post·montm assumption~ in
advance (1744b), and also because after his death he has a special place of
honour before the t hrone of God (1748a).
FinaJiy, according to some late writing-s, the penitent malefactor with
whom Jesus was crucified (lk. 23.39-43) apparently also experienced a post·
monem assumption. In the Descent into Hell text associated with the Gospel
of Nicodemus t5th-6th c.), the ut~named thief enrers Paradise, carrying his
cross on his shoulde~ and joins Enoch and Elijah to await the entry of all
other righteous on.. (D-.e. Chr. ad In{. 10.26).""Thi• could imply that he
{like Enoch and Elijah) was assumed - a fter, however, he d ied on the cross.
This is clearer in the Na"ative of joseph of Arimathea (a medieval legend:
the earliest manuscript is 12th c. G reek). Joseph, collecting the body of Jesus,
6nds that the unrepcotaot thief•s body h.ad the: appearance o ( a dragon~ but
rhe body of tbe orber- here called Demas- could not be found (Narr. ]os.
4 ).UI
Implications
A number of results significant for the study of Q 13.35 arise from this
survey. First, it was noted that disappeotrance (Or invisibility) is an a lmost
ubiquitous correlate to as-.su rnption both in the Graeco.. Roman and in the
j ewish traditions. A number of sources used language similar to that found
in Q 13.35 (oU 1J1i l6nti ~t): 2 Kgs 2.12 LXX (<ai oo<
<16•• a1hov £n);
Berossos (OOK OTI o~Sij•a•); Plutarch (o.ln ~·(>05 ,:,~en ow~a'fo;, Rom.
27.5); Lucian (ou llli• ic.lpcXTo yt, Peregr. 39); al•o Mk 9.8 and Mt. 17 .8
([oUKiTtl oUc5iva lilOov}. In addition, 'seeing' language was used to describe
the exalted status of an a""umed figure (iOOII1't$, Wis. 5 ..2; d. Wis. 2 .17-20),
and to connote the eschatological rerurn of figures who bad experienced
assumption {4 Ev-a 6.25·26). This is significant beca use, as the temporal
i~-dause indicates, the disappearance or abstnce of jesus in Q 13.351ook$
ahead to a reappearance or return.
Second, instances of post-mortem as-sumption were highlighted in the
Graeco-Roman, Jewish. and latet Christian traditions. This i.s significant
in order for assumption to function 85 the means of Jesus• post•mortem
vindication in Q. In Greek thought, the disappearance of a corpse (Aeneas,
Memnon, Arls:teas of Proconnessus., Akmen.a}, esptclally £rom a tomb or
2S9. L. Rydm, &mnf:ungcn %)ml Wbm Ms ~iligcn N4rren Sym4!t>n von LulnJios ~
Nupolis (Acta Univuticatil\ Upsalien$ls1 Srudi~ Gt:aeca Upsaliensit, 6; Sux:khotm: Almqvist
lie WiltS<U, 1970), p. 138.
260. F.JIK:Mt, Apoayphttl Nt«~ T'114mt!tll, pp. 189-90, 196.
261. £11iott, AfKXTYI'btJl Nft<VTcsta"mtt• p. 22J.
Mswmption in Antiquit)l 93
funeral pyre (Huald<S, P..ottus, Achill«, Callirhoe), sisnilkd auumptioo.

The person io quC$tioo was accorded honour as befieting a hero or an
immortal. In Jewish tradition the idea of pos;c-mortem assumprion is uou.suaJ
but not impouible.ln panicular, assumption languagt is applitd to the Book
of Wisdom'• murdered and exalted "righteous one', as the author applied
topoi from Grttk consolation littrature and Jewish csc.hatological thought
to rhc case of the righteous one who died too soon. A similar strategy may
hove been at wotk in T. Job 39.11·12, although there it is not clear exacdy
why Job's dud children were taken up bodily into hciJvc:n. In l:ucr Christian
lirerarure, pogt-mortcm assumptions were narrated or Ztchariah. Mary,
John the evangelist, and the penitent thief. Precisely how a 'post·mortem
assumption' was understOod is unclear, though certain more philosophically
sophisticated authors (Philo, Ovid) combine bodily disappearance with talk
of the dissolution or the material body in ordc:r to :avoid sayi"g the bucr part
o( human nature is take-n into the divinC' realm.
finatly, 11. few instances wt.re noted ln whK:h figures accorded a speda)
role in csc:hatoiOBical thought (as judge, wimess, or recipient of heavenly
knowledge) came lO be- the subject of assumption speculauon."62 1'bus
GUnrer Haufc•s thesi.s that assumption is a situ qu non for escharologk.al
function works both ways in the &velopmt:nt of tradicion: those for whom
assumption traditions were in circuJarion ca.me to have a prominent place
in e!Chatolocical speculations (Enoch, Elijoh, Moses), and vie< ••= (Ezra,
Boruch. Tabitha). Along similar lines, Callim•chus apparently could tallt
about the deiliouion of Arsine<; II Philaddphos (who during her lifetime
was given divine honours) using the idea that she had bctn 'snatched away
by the Dioskourol'. This Is of pOtential sigoiticance for Q because ir raises
the possibility that assumption language in Q 13.35 might be a socondary
cxpl11nati011 Q( the belief, evident ei$Cwhcrt in Q, that jcfUI would rctu.rn as
the Son of man or Coming One.
262. Socucthh~ •imUa.r was nowJ in n:5pC(;t of tle.r.akk:s and Al'$inoC U Philade.lpbos.
Chapter 4
T HE DEATH AND AsSUMPTION OF jESUS IN Q 13.34-35
This chapter explore$ the idea that the diuppe;ullnC< language in Q 13.3S
explains the belief in jesus• return as the Son of man. This is parti"u.larly
important for Q•s (lite.rary) answer to the problem of the de.ath of J~us, a
problem which is within the hori.z.ons not only of Q but of this sayiog in
panicular, for it connect.s the ~jection of tht speaker by 'Jerusalem~ with his
coming disappearance and rerurn. Thus assumption language in this saying
provides a: basis for undel'$tanding how the •post-mortem vindication• of
Jesus is undets[ood in Q, particularly because here assumption is explicitly
connected with Jes-us• special cschatol<>gical function a.$ the Son of rna~
but also because assumption suggests divine favour and validation. On this
bas-is even talk of the 'exaJr.arion• of jesus for Q is wananced, espec-ially in
relation to sayings that suggest the ongoing existence in heaven of the Son
of man (e.g. Q 12.8·9).
The Reconstruction of the Saying
There a re $0me minor differences in wording (noted below ill underlined

text) between the versions of Q 13.34-3S given in Mt. 23.37·39 and Lk.
13.34·35, lew of which have any significant bearing on the saying's intt..-.
precarion.
Mt. 23.37·39
(37) ' lopouoo).J\~ ' l•pouoa;\q~. 1\ cinronoi vouoa Tovs n po4>1\Tas <<Xl
1-oOoJX>I.oiioa TOUS iutOOTOA~tvoos
ITpOS aun)v, noocms ~8£1-~oa
irrtOVYQ¥fl¥i.JY Ta TiKYa 000 1 OV Tporrov ,.opVlS ~
' ... . , to' ' '
T«.. VOOOt' a _
minis VrrO TCc~ rrripvyas, Kal oVK l]&~l)oan. (38} i&U a~tnat 0 o1Kos
' • •E'PQUOS;. (39)
UIJc.lV . '\MYc.l
! '
XQ:A • ...
UIJ(V, • ' "" • • • .. ... •
ou IJTI UA tol'JT! Qtr apTI l(o)S f:l.V. t t m}Tt'
tU~oyruJivos 0 tpxOl-ltVOS' Ev Ov61Jo--r1 KVplou.
Lk. 13.34·3S
(H) "l•pouoal-1\~' ltpouoaM~. 1\ <'rrro.-rtivouoa TOVS npo4>ojTas <a1
A18ot3oAoUoa ToO~ O:rrooTaAJJivovs rrpOs aUnjv, rroachts 1]96~'10«
imauvc:Xem TO TiKva aov, Ov Tpbrrov Opvls :n)11. ' aurQs
The Death and Assumption of jesus in Q 13.3 4-JS 95
The v.rbal differ.nc:e. may be noted briefly. Mt. 23.37 gives the second aorist
infinitiv~ of !ntovv6:yw, while Lk. 13.34 gives me 6rst aorist. Ac.cording
to F.D. Weinert, the Sepruagim tends to use second aorist active forms of
auv&yc.l and this verb, a usage reflected in Luke and throughout the 1\'T and
whic-h Luke would not have. aheced had it appeared in his source text~ 1 In
Matthew, the verb is repeated (lmauvayoo), but Lk. 13.34 is elliptical.' A
sc-ribal error on the part of either evangelist could explain another minor
difference: Matthew bas the neurer plural vocola ('nestlings') bur Luke has
the fem ini ne singular vnoooav ('nest', or 'brood').' Steck thought Luke's
wording original, arguing that 'nt$r is more suited to the wisdom orien·
tation of the saying (citing Sir. 1.15 LXX).' Matthew's plural could also
be a secondary adjusnnenr to rhe plural TO: TiKva.s Finally, in light of the
Lukar\ preference £or SauToU,6 Manhew's posst$sive pronoun may reflect ch~
original Q wording, though this is of little significance for interpretation.
Mauhaean redaction o f Q 13.35 creates two more differences between
Matthew and Luke: the addition of iprwos (v. 35a) and cl:n' apn (v. 35b).
There is t extual uncertainty regarding EP'liJOS' in Lk. 13.35, but the manuscript
evidence is suong for its absence and the addition can be explained as scribal
harmonization to Mt. 23.38.7 Ma tthew probably added it to Q iJI allusion
to Jer. 22.5.* Matthew also adds O:rr' Cxptl (a Mauhaeanism},' here and in
1. F.O. Weitl(rt~ 'Luke~ the Temple ~d Jesus• S~yioQ about Je:ruulem'• Abandoned
House (Luke 13<34-35)', CBQ « (1982), pp. 68-76 (72);""' alsoCbrist,Je"" SopbU., p.
131, ind Hoffmann, Studien, p. 111 i d. Sieck, lsrfld, p. 48; Garland, Jm.pai<m, p. J 81 ~-
81 .
2. Skc;k, /f:racl, pp. 48-49 thinks Matthew ~lis io the ellip~-i-..
J. So SDAG.
<4. Stec:lt, Jmu.l, p. 234: d. Hoffmann, Studi.en, p. 112. Sir. J.I$ LXX re<1ds: ~'TO
Ov8pc;)tr(o)V 6r1J[At011 ai~ws ilo'Oootuotv ....
S. Schu.la, SpruchqMelle, p. 346.
6. S.:hub, Spn.ti>qu<lk, p. J~ and n. 173; Weinen, 'Abandooed Howe', p. 72; H.
Fkdt'krm.ann, ·~Cross aod Di&c:ipksh.ip in Q\ SBLSP 27 (19881, pp. 472-82 (47-4 n. 9).
7. V~o~Wv: ~"''nL11 tt A B K L. R W r / ' 56$ 1010 pm lat sy• s.a; U~~~~~ i'p~: DNA
e 't' !" 28 33 700 892 1241 1424 pm i<vg" sy'"''·
8. je.r. 22.5b LXX: ; is 5p ~loiWO I III io1'0 e 0 oh:"O; olhos. Sec Buumann. z.,,
R.de-nt[ut:ll¥, p. 76; Ckri$1., }t:SJd SophitJ , p. 137> R.H. Gundry, Matrh~: A Commn~tary
<m His H"ndbooJc for a Mi:ud Cb•~rcb Und~ PnHc:Hli()ft (G.rand lt~pid.s: E.:rdm<~ ftl, 2nd
cdn.. 1994), p. •?l. Suggs thought thi.s shows the originality of ip~~~os sto~e the word
:«rt$$t:S the ' captif'iJY' the:n:\e: pre:senr in other .acoounts o(Wisdom't r~jecrion {Wi.sdo'", p.
68 n. 16). Hoffm<~m'l tStNJien, p. t n) thinks the word ls a post· M<~tthaean g)O$s, sinct
$0CDt: manuscriptS omir ir from Mattht'w u wdl.
9. So j .C. Hawkins, Horae Synoptiau; Cotttribrmmu to 1M Study of the Synoptic
hoblcm (Oxfotd: Clartndon, 2nd ~dn, 1909), p. 4.
96 Post-Mortmt Vindicatian of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Mt. 26.26, 64, to heighten che saying's eschatological impact. ' 0 Manhean
redaction also explains the ycXp connecting Mt. 23.38, -39, I t but given that Sa
is reJCtually uncertain in Lk. 13.3Sb, it is not dear wh~t conjunction link~
the sentence$ in Q. u Ma«hew and Luke also disagree on the placement of
J.lli in rdarion to the ve-rb; Luke might preserve Q's word order, but this is
uncertain (and makes JiuJe differe.nce). f inaJly, in v. 3Sb, Macchew has £ws
av eiTTlJn and Luke has rhe more awkward ews ~~~~on ei1T1J-... Again Luke
is tel(tually unceruin: only D preserves this reading (and some Old Larin and
Syriac versions with the addition ~ ~~lpa), but if original ;r would explain
mort easily than the other readings how the bewildering array of variants
arose.O lf original in Luke, ~~&l On is most likely Q's wording as well,
because Luke never uses an expression like this with a temporal condition,
and the verb ~kw is hardly 'Lukan'.14 Matthew's version can be seen as a
srylisric improvement; further, Manhew could have eliminated fi~il On in
favour of the similar connotation given b)' the Matthaean Cur• CipTI.
Thus The Critical Edititm of Q gives rhe following r<eonstruction of Q
13.34-35:
Q 13.3+35
(34)' 1epouoaAI}~'Iepouoa~~~. ~ cXrroKT&ivovoa ToUs rrp0<t>1has JCai
~~8o~oAoUoa ToUs 6:TTooT«~IJivous- rrpOs aUniv, TToocX.us r}96~f)oa
£movvaya.yelv TO ti~~:vo. oou, Ov Tp0nov Opv15 6mauvci~t T(fCxl) vooola
auTiis VITO TQS rrripuyas. kat oUk r\&l.t)oa-... (35) iOo.i O.~i.Tat 0 ol•os
u~Olv. J..iyoo •• ·~··· oU ,.ui ioqn ~·;.., !Iii~.. oniJEtllT)U" EUAOYTl~•vos
0 ipxOJ.l!UOS Ev Ov61JaTI ~ruplou. u
A more difficult question, encoun tered above, concerns the original

position of rhe jerusalem saying in Q. Ir has been often suggested chac
Matthe-vt· retain!l the saying in itS original Q position. Early prOpOnents of
this view thought that Q 11.49-51 and 13.34-JS o riginally stood together in
a lost Wisdom document from which, according to Q, j esus is quoting (Lk.
10. Set van det Kwaak, •Ktag<', p. 164; Steck., Israel, p. SO; Hoffm2nn, Studkn, p.
172; Garland, lnJention, p. 20.S; Allison., ' Mart. 23:39 • Luke 13:3.Sb'. p. 81 n. 1.
11. See Hacnchen, •Mattbaus 23', p. S6p·an d(:r Kwaa~ jKJage', p. 163; Sttc.k, Israel.
p. SO; Hoff'm.a.M. Studitn. p. t 72; Garland. l11ttntion., p. 20'7.
12. Myc.>UjJlv: ~·J "• Lpdt st;"iyco>litU~iv: 'J)'S Ml As 0 lt we 't' f 1·Um? b.t
ayr".
13. See B.M. Mmser, A T,JCtual Comm~11tary ()n the Greek N~w Test.ttnent
{Srungan: Dcu.tschc- Bibe~lbchaft, 2nd edn, 1994), p. 138; see also Robinson ~t a l.~
Critical Edition, p. 423.
H. fivo oceWTences in Luke. Lk. 12.46 (Ql; 13.29 (Q); 13.35 (Q?); 15.17 tLkS);
19.43 (LkSJ; none in Acu.
l.S. Robinson ec al., Cri.tiul E.di.tion, pp. 42()...23: double bracken indicatt" an
uru:~rrain tttoosuuction, and the rwo ®ts i.ndieare rldt thete peth.ap~ was a ~j unt.:tion
h~""een Xiyt.o:J and VIJill, but this (and iu rec:onstroction) i.s unteNain. Fkddermann,
ltc«.>n#TUdion and Commentary, pp. 7()()..()3, age~ with tbc JQP reoonmuction.
The Death dnd Assumplion of jesus in Q 13.34-35 97
11.49 ~ Q: 6ti:lTOOTO K(IO ~ oo4>fo TOU 8toii E11T<• KTA). ltcannot be proven
t hat Q 11.49-Sland Q 13.34-35 were derived (together or separately) from
a pre.Chrisrian Vorlage. More important art the (WO arguments upon which
was ba$ed the supposition of a unitary origin in a common source: fitS[, both
sayings have a •supra~historical' perspectil't, aod so the speakcl:' mU$t be
divine Wisdom in both eases;'' second, the common deuteronomisric theme
of rejected and persecuted prophets means that the twO sayings must have
been originally joined.''
The first argument is problematic on several coums. Naturally, an
origina1 separation of the two sayings in Q is not ruled out by their similar
perspective. On the other hand_, Haenchen's concern about the sayings'
different 'hisroricaP pers-pectives" does not amount to a strong argument
against their original unity; for as Robinson correctly argued, the: future-
oriented view of 11.49 (a1Too-r.Aw, Lk. 11.49 ~ Q) is a device uood to depict
past even[$ as fu lfilments of rhc divine plan." Even if a 'supra-historical
subject' is required by the rrooaKIS r}&(ArjOQ in 13.34, A$y(t) V~'iv, which is
characte<istie of jesus' spe«h in Q'0 (and in the canonical gospels as well),
would ar least signal a shih to Jesus as speaker in Q lUI b. So, if the sayings
had stood together in Q, Jews himself is speaking •t the end of the Wi.sdorn
saying; therefore, it does nor fo llow that the speaker of Q 13.34,..35 is nec~s ·
sarily Wisdom, despite the saying's obvious wisdom themes. Q 13.34-35,
moreover, bas Jesus as speaker throughout; it will be argued below rha r Aiyw
VJJ'iv in v. 35b is used adversatively. Granted, $eeing Jesus as the speaker of
the Lament raises problems of its own - panicularly if the saying's wisdom
motifs are taken seriously- but these will be dealt with below.
The second argument, recendy re:formulated by Robinson, CQncerns t he
dcureronomistic theme connecting Q 11.49·51 and 13.34-35. In his view,
both sayings clearly allude to the deuteronomisric passage 2 Chron. 24.19·
23.2 l The allpsion$ were appar~ntly nc)f clear tO Matthew, who mistakes
Zechariah (LXX: Azarias), whose stoning is described in 2 Chron. 24.20-
22, for Zechariah, son of Barachiah {Zech. 1.1 ). Robinson argues that if
Matthew did not see the allusion to 2 Chronicles 24. then he missed the
reason why he should have joined rbe two Q sayings together, so that they
must have already been lOgcther in Q. 21 However, the Wisdom saying and the
Jerusalem Lament have enough feato.res in common to suggest to Matthew
16. So mo11t influentially Bultmann, HiJtory, pp. 11 ~ ts.

17. So Robinson, ' Building Bloc;b', pp. 102-o6; Robinson., "Scquen«! of Q',
pp. 251)-55.
18. Hacnc:ben.. 'MatthiU$lJ', p. 56; also Jatobsoo, First Gosp~t. p. 209.
19. Robinson, 'Sequence of Q', p. 244.
20. ~eeptiQrt$ are Q 3.8b •whett john i$ $puJc in~J. and pmibly Q 19.U (Lk..) and
Q 14.24 (U:S) t ~ mastt.rs in the parabb).
21. Robi!UOn, ' Building Sloc::lu'. pp. 104-06; 'S«Juenc;e of Q\ pp. 2$0-S.l .
22.. RobiNQn, 'building etock• '• p. 106; 'Seq\.Jence of Q'. p . 2$2.
98 Post-Morum Vindicqtjon of jesus in the Sayings GC>sf>el Q
- even unaware of the texu' spec:ifk allusions - 3 secondary joining If they

bad originally been separa"' ..yings in Q. Or, as Hoffmann has put it, rhe
correspondences nored by Robinson berween 2 Chronicles 24 and Q 11.49·
51 and 13.34·35 'show only that rhe rwo texts drew from rhe same well of
me deuteronom.istic prophetic tradition'.tJ
So arguments that similarities o f theme or perspective indicate that Q
13.34·35 originally followed Q I 1.49·51 in Qare not decisive. On the other
hand, there is evidence of redactional work in the context of Q 13.34~35 in
borh Marthew and Luke." Marthew has placed the Woes complex- wirh the
Jerus~lem Lament as their conclusion - as jesus' final public speech {kc Mt.
23. 1), so that the abandonment of the house is first announced to the crowds
(Mt. 23.3.9 = Q 13.35b) and then explained ro the disciples (ML 24.1·2).
luke assoeiau. it with Jesus' journey ro Jerusalem (Lit. 9.51; 13.22, 31·33).
Some think the catchword 'Jerusalem' (Lk. 13.33) is the reason for Luke's
re..Jocation of the saying, u since it wo-uld have made J.ittle sense-in the Lukan
context of the Woes, the meal at the Pharisee's house (Lk. 11.37, 53). But this
raises the question why lu.ke would have moved the Lame:nr to this locatio~
for his redactional travelogue commen.ts could have been inserted prncticaUy
anywhere." Jr therefore may be suggested that Luke added 13.22, 31·33 in
order to make sense of the original Q location of the saying (that is, after Q
13.24, 26-27, 28·30), which he did not disturb."
The question must be answered on the grounds of Q itself. In which
location would the $eying have made better sense? Robinson notes that
'Q 12.2·12, ha'fing co do wirh anxiecy over being killed because of one's
witness to Jesus, originally Oowed equally well' out of either Q 11.49·51
or 13.34-35, Qr even 1 1.47·48, rhe 6nal Woe, because all thre~ have to do
with the same theme, the killing of prophers.u Hoffmann argues that Q
12.2-12, with its contemporary concern being the danger f.-aced by Jesus'
followers, flows out of the Wisdom uying best of all because-its redactional
~J. P. Hoffm•nn. 'Q 1J.J4·JS, S«ond R,.poose', •ppeo.dix toS.R.Johnson, 'SS2, Q

13:3-4·35' (unpubljshcd database prepared for rM International Q Project Work Sessions,
19!14), p. J.
24. Set' Christ, jesus Sophin, pp. 136-37; Gatl.and.lntenJion1 p. 197; Tuckett, Q tmd
tht Hi#ory. pp. J7J-74.
2S. See, for instanct~ Bultm.a.on, History, p. 115; Harnchen, 'Manb.iill$ 23', p. -41,
Robin,on suucscs We Lu.k.t't interpolation o( 13..U~33 'attempts co rcereau the eq:uiv;~lenr
of the fitting Marthea.n conttxt' ('Sequence of Q', H9).
26. As Robinson puts it. 'o!\e h~• (i.n Lk:. 13.Jl·J3J '" insunce of tuke tod<lcrioo~lly
creating an otherwise non-exiMent setting to whkb be can transftt the Lament' ('Sequence
o( Q', p. 258).
27. HoffmaM, 'Sewnd Re~.-ponse', pp. s.-6; 110 a!Jo Kloppenborg. flo"'""tion., p. 228;
j:tcob$on. FirSI GotJHI, p. 210.
28. Robin.st)O, 'Seq~.N:t'K:e of Q'. pp. lSJ-5-4. Robinsoo thinb the Woes. the Wisdom
'"7in& and tbe IAlnm< (Q ll.391>-<4, 46·48, 52 + l 1.49-.l I • 13.3+-35) together comprloe
'tbe cenu:al text for W Q rt<betion, u it tuperimposed W dtuwooomis:tic "iew o( history
ooto the Q tradition' {l$4).
The Death and Assumption of jesus in Q 13.34·35 99
additions (ll.SOb, Sib) conremporize the soying for the Q communi ry,
using the polemic against 'th.is generarion•.tt Q 13.34#35~ ln Hoffmann'$
view, has jesus as its speaker and controsts his rejection with the vindication
expected at bjs coming as Son of man. Tbjs christOiogiz-ing tendency would
havt" intertupted the flow ha d the Lament originally followed immediately
after the Wisdom saying.»
Q 13.34-35 a lso fits well in the Lukan order of Q: the exclusion faced
by rhose who reject Q's message (Q 13.24·29) finds concrete ex pression
in the jerusalem Lament, as Hoffmann notes,J 1 and is also paralleled in
the following parable of the Great Supper, where those invited refuse
participation in rbe escharologicaJ banquer. Reclining with the patriarchs
(Q 13.28) has the eschatological banquet in view; and bringing in thost
nor originaUy invited (Q 14.21-23) reealls rhe inclusion of Gentiles ·i n the
kingdom (Q 13.29). Q 13.34·35 stands in the middle as a prophecy of the
Coming One's judgment, although apparently the invitation to Jerusalem
was still !tanding. T here is, therefore, good thematic cohesion between
Q 13 .24-29 + 13.34·35 + 14.16·24.32 Ir seems unlikelr, had Q 13.34-35
originally followed 11.49-51, that Luke would have insened Q 13.34·35
precisely where he does, creating between pieces o f Q material new con nee·
tions invisible to bis readers owing to other redactional work in Luke 1~14.
Given these observations, lt seems more likely that Luke, and not Matthew.
ha.! retained the lament in itS o riginal Q context: that is to say, Q 13.34-35
originally followed Q 13.24-29 and preceded 14.flll ]], 16·24."
An observation concerning luke's redaction of Q 13.29. 28 corrobo-
rates this conclusion. Many think Matthew, in general, preserves better the
original order and wording of Q 13.29, 28."
ll•al nolloi]] CxiTO ixvaTo~<>· •ai ooo~c:i· ~~OUOIV KQt ilvaKA•81\ooiiTal

11mi 'Aj3paix11•al 'loaax •al'i""C:,jl iv Tij 1\ao•;>..l'l' Too S.o\i, ((lill,.t•sJJ 6i
29. Hoffman.o, 'Se:cond Response•, p. 5.

JO. Hof{JD3no, 'Sc<:ond RespOI'l$e', pp. 3-4.
JJ. fioffnunn. 'Second Response•. p. $.
32. Also in favour o f thjs is c:be •house' imagery in Q 13.2+29 and 13. 35• (so
ja~. Fint Go.t(H.l. p. 210). Re«ntly ~ph Vt:rheydcm. ('Killing or tht .Prophet$'. p. 9)
noted tbcsc ~on~ti<ms but a rgued instead dlat Q 13.24-29 originaUy foUowtd 11.<49-S I +
13.34-JS~ oo this te3ding, in 13.3$b rept.nuoce comtS too ~te. and the Maret$" are denied
entry (13.24·291.
J J . The prnc:nce of U . 14.11 par. M1. 2.).12 in Q is dis-put(d, O'lainly beeauu
of its· proverbial oaturc; s~ J.S. Kloppcnborg, Q Paralltls: S.,-opsis. Critie.sl Note$, d-
CAncord4na lfi)Uodatioo.s &nd F<aeets.; Sonorna, CA: Polebridge, 1988), p. 162. The IQ.P
include it at a (q raring (Robinson, c:t al., Critiul Editiotl. pp. 43~31). H H . ll was
origicully i.n Q. its affirmation or the ex.altation of W humble and the humiliut ion o(
the exalted. would 6t wc:ll between 13.34·3S and 14.16-14, both of whidl coocem offtn
n;tc:ted by tbost in e.xalrtd posiriom - i.C, in fact, 13.J..4-JS is dirn"ted against the elite of
Jerutalero ( .ee Kk>ppeoborg. &uwatint Q. p. 118).
J<. S<hah, S(JrHchqouU., p. 323; l<loppcnborg. F""""tio•, p. 226.
hil>-f(~S<)o.,oe,. <is- To]] oKoTo,- To i~c.l((upovlJ· oK£1 tOTcu oKAauo~Os

<ai 0 flpvy~O, TWV o56vrwv.
[[And many]] shall come from Sunrise and Sunset and re.:line with
Abroham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of God, bur ffyou will bell
thrown out ((into che]J oucJ[er darkness]], where there will be waili~g and
grinding of teeth."
Luke has made two significant additions tO Q 13.28 - th_e hearen: ·seeing'
their exclusion from t.hc kingdom, and a reference to "all the prophets' - so
that his version reads:
There will be wailing and grinding of teeth when you see Abraham and
Isaac and Jacob i!.ruU.U the proRheu in the kingdom of God, but you
thrown outside. (Lk. 13.28)
Luke's redactional additions to Q (underlined) are significant, particularly

because Q 13.34~35 contains che same language: 'the prophetS', and Op6:w
for a future 'seeing'. The je-rusalem Lament focuses on the re-jec.:tion and
murder of prophets (Q 13.34) and Jooks ahead to a future seeing (after a
time of invisibility) of r.he speaker, who presumably comes in judgment (v.
35). Lk. 13.28 predictS that the hearers would see themselves excluded from
the Jcingdom and chc prophets vindic.ated in the presence of the patriarchs. It
seems Luke, looking ahead to Q 13.34-35, redacted Q 13.28 to ooordinacc
the themes of the cwo sayings mote closely. The presence of the future of
~""'in both Q ! 3.29 and 35b may have suggested this redactional assimi-
lation, which would be very remarkable indeed if Q 13.34-35 had originally
followed Q 11.49-51."
Tht Rejeaion of Jesus and the Abandonmtmt ofJerusalem
The most signi6canr result of deciding in favour of Luke's placement of Q

13.34-35 in Q is that Je.us, not Wisdom personified, must be the speaker
of the saying (although the Mauhaean position of the saying does not
completely rule this out). This presems some difficulties, particularly given
35. RobinM>n et ~ 1., Criti<"AI Edition, pp. 4 'l4-17.

36. This also augge&:ts Luke undentood Q 13.34·35- as MaHhcw did ... tl) refer to a
fururt: tim<: o( judgment at tbc l'arousia, but reorienttd it, with the r«<acrional rdcrmoes
t() Jerusalem ;and to ptopbetit martyrdom in U. 13 ..}1 ~33 , ~ tbat lk. 13.34 -lS refen tO
jesU$' entry into Jerusalem and passion.
Th• Deoth and Aw.mrpticm of Jesus in Q IJ.J•·JS 101
rhr repeated appeals menrio(led in Q ]J.J4, bur ir also prrr.eou some

important implicatioos for how <he fart of jaus is undencood in Q.
The refe:renu to jerusalem is imponanr, tsp«ially since Q only mentions
jtrusalem he«: and in the temptation narrative (Q 4 •.9) and oc-bc:rwi.K secm5
to imply a C.lilacan sttting (Q 10.13· IS). Given the saying's deuteronomi.s<ic
background, the dtseription of Jtrusalem asl\ Aolloj!oAoUoa tools clmcxna>.~i
IIOU5 npOs au~v W115 probably suggesttd, as Robinson has argued, by <he
sroning of Zechariah in 2 Chron. 24.21 LXX !•ai il-oeojlOAIJOav a1hov: s«
also Q ll .S I)." But jerusalem as the murderer of prophe11 it unusual in the
dcureronomistlc tradition. Stctk observc.d that •rhis aposrrophc to jerusalem
as the perpetraror is nriking: elsewhere in larc jewish ttadicion, jerusalem
is nor the: subject of disobedience a nd is never delibcrarely connected with
the violent fare of prophets'." Steck argued that a senS< that the destruction
o( jeru1alcm was immincoc j~o~st prior to 70 CE may have tuggcstcd a focus
on jerusa1em in particular (yet symbolizing all of lsrael) as the perpctrator.u
But in Steck's view the Jerusalem Lament was nor in Q and was not a saying
of jesus.
Suck did show, however, thaf the wisdom myth provides 11 clue to tbc
significance of the jerusalem reference in Q 13.34. Stnce Jerusalem, aad
pankulady the Temple, Wa.J coosiclered the special place of residence fOf
Wisdom (or the Shekina), it is also <he place abandontd in Witdom's r<tUm
to heaven. Sir. 2~ . 10..12 iJ the classic trxt for the view that Wi.sdom dwdls
among rhe people of God, in particular in Zion, and in jerusalem, the
'beloved ciry' (Sir. 24.11) ... Fur<hcr, Witdom builds her nest among human
beings (Sir. I. IS), and <he di<ine presence offers protection to Israel (I En.
89.56; 2 Bar. 8.1·2; Pss. Sol. 7.1·2), as rhe imagery of Q 1J.34b s uggests.' '
Thus, when Wisdom departs. as in I £". 42. 1-2, the people in general,
jerus;Jiem in panicular, a nd most especially the ·remple, arc abandoned. "rhis
is expressed in Q 13.3Sa: i6oU Q~ltTat 0 o1K~ UJ,JQ\1, As tht withdrawal
o( Wisdom it focused upon jerusalem~ so also is the removal, owing to
lsracl's disobcdien(:c: ;ctording to the deutcronominic rradition, of the
divine protection (2 Chron. 24.20, 23·24). Thus jeruu lem is •ingled out as
rypifying lsracl~s violent rejection of prophets and emissarie5.
This M:Jps, but adds little to an interp~tarion which vicwt jecur as the
•peaker here. Hoffmann, who also aegued that Jesus is <he speaker io Q
13.34·35, proposed another scenario. ln his -n~w. the speake:.r iJ no' neces·
sarily the one who sends the prophetS and emissaries. but instead is depicted
J7. kobo....., 'l!uilding Blocb', pp. 104-C6; 'S<qumc. ol Q'. PI'• 2.S~H.
J8. St..:k,lm.J, pp. 2l7-28iauthot\ traMbrion).
J,. Steck, l.mul. p. 22.9; d. Hof&nann. SIWJU'J'.. p. 179.
<40. The pramct or influenoe of Wisdom amOI\1 the ptopk prog.rtttivcly upaads
in Sir. 2<4.10· 11: 6.nt her bome is in tbe u.bemad.t--. tbton Zion Cw. 10•, then jenanlem
•· II}, and finally •in an honoured people. in the portion of the Lo.rd'
'the beloved thy' «
•• • 12).
41 . For thk imagt.ry, see lkut. 32.11; P:u. 17.8; 36.7; Ruth 2.11; 2 8t~r. •U .J....4j .of Ur11
I.J01applied to Wi1dom, Jec Sir. 1.15; Prov. t6.16lXX, See Sttd:.lsrlj;tl• pp. 411-SO.
102 Post-Mortem Vindie<~tion of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
as standing in toncinuity with other rejec-ted messengers of God.'u The.

Jerusalem Lament has its SilZ im Leben ' in c.he rejccrion ..• of the messengers
of jesus., which Q looked back upon•..u Tht' deute.ronomlStic uadition may
have been piclced up as a way of theologizing the rejection of t he Q mission·
aries (see especially Q 11.49-51, noting the eontemparizing 11.5lb),44 but
Q 13.34·35 is more suggestive of Jesus' fate than that of the Q messengers.
Jerusalem figures in the saying because Q consider. the speaker as one of
those s.ent to, and rejected by, that c::ity. jesus• C}(ecution there, a fact of which
the Q community could scarcely have been ignor:tnt, provides the b~sis for
dte reference to jerusalem.
A probJem, however, ;arises with the prindpa l clau5e of Q 13.34:
'
rrooaKIS q'8'\. ' . . Ta\ Tn:va
El\l)CJa nncvvaya)'£1" ' oou. Many commenrators, most
in8uentially Buhmann, see trooci:Kt5 ~&eAflOO: as requiring a 'supra-bistoricaJ'
subject. On rh_is basis, then, the pre$ent parcicipJes chroKTti vouoa and
At8ofloAoooo refer deuteronomistically to the w hole history of jerusalem's
(l$racl's) treatment of prophetS. If the whole history of l•rael is in vitw, then
rroo01o5 ri8iAT)Oa cannoc have j esus as its spe-aker. H offmann circumvented
this dilemma by propOsing that wbile t he participles might refer tO tbe whole
history of Jerusalem, the often-sought-for gathering of its children 'describes
rather the speakcr•s repeated attempts with respect tQ the ..children of
Jerusalem• in the present'.'' This is difficult to reconcile with the (probable)
historical fact that jesus only made one journey to jetusalem.
Again, the w isdom tradition offers some clarificacion. While Q 7.35
describes jesus and j ohn as emissaries of Wisdom, other Q materials
de-m onsuate a rather elevated wisdom christology: this is seen most .strongly
in Q 10.21-22, where jesus is practically identified with Wisdom as the
mediator of revelation, but also in Q 11..49, where jesus voices the speech
o f Wisdom as the one who sends tht prophets (inroonAc:; ... rrmt\TOS
KOl [cutOOTOAovs]; compare Q 10.3, ioov a!IOOTiMw u~&s ... ). Here in Q
13.34 j esus speaks as Wisdom, reflecting the many appeals made through her
emissaries and rejected by Israel but especially by the children o f Jerusalem
as th.e perpetrators of his own rejection and death. Thu•, jesus does speak
as a ·supra-historical' subject, a nd yet o ne whose own end is implie:it in the
rejection of Wisdom by Jerusale,m . The combination o f the deuteronomistie
tradition with the wisdom myth 6nds an e-xtrao(dinary development in Q
13.34: in Q 11.49 Jesus speaks on behalf of Wisdom, the one who sends
the prophets; bur here he speak.s as Wisdom - precisely, as the emissary
of WJSdom par excellence w hose rejection s ignifies the final withdrawal of
Wisdom from her abode in ]eruu.lc.m. ~'
•2. Hoft'm.al'ln,Studi4Nt, p. 174.

43. Hoffmann, Studin~. pp. 179- 80 (author's translation).
44. Ho((nuan, Studim, p. 179.
4$. Hof~nn.Srud'ien,p. 174.
46. C£. Suggs, WJSdom, p. 67, who thought Qhas 0(1( made the: idtnti6carion betwuo
)...., and Wisdom 1ahhoush Mattb<w has).
The Death and Assumption of Jesus in Q 13.34-JS 103
The deuterooomistic <;onnection between the rejection of prophets and

the withdrawal of divin-e protection has already been mentioned, but a few
remarks may be made here regarding Q 13.35a, iooo
a<!>itTao 0 o1•os- upc:\v.
The use of the passive shows that a divine act of ;udgment results from
jerusale.m's continued impenitence and rejection of Wisdom•s entreaties. As
Robinson has noted, 2 Chron. 24.2.0 envisions something similar: 'Because
you have forsaken rhe Lord, he also will forsake yo u' (LXX: oy>:anAi rrtn,
iYkaTa).til.(.lrt).41 In t.hat passage, the Temple is also referred to as ' house'
(24.21; cl. Ps. 117.26b LXX), as iris in Q !3.35a." 'Your house' suggests
the jerusalem temple as the locus of divine presence in Israel. That Q 13.35a
begins with iOOU is significant. Nor only is IOoU the typical introduction
to a prophetic threat, but the word is used uniformly in Q to suggest a
present state:'' Thus? v. 35a signals Jerusalem's present situation of being
abandoned by God to desuuction, 50 which would have been understood as
a significant eschatological event by the saying·'s tradents.u Bur this does
not necessitate a post-70 setting for the saying. (Such a setting is, however,
dear from Matthew's addition of iptlJJOS'.) lnst~d7 it may onlt reflect the
turbulent times before 70,11 or indeed even catlier. As Kloppcnborg h;.s
recently argued, knowledge of the Roman siege practice-of e-v oking rhe deiry
before the destruction of a sacred site and/or its environs- evocat.io deorum
- could lead to the conclusion that the abandonment of the temple was a
possibiliry,n even apart from a •deuttronomiscic appraisal of current events.
7
This setting lor Q 13.34-JS as a whole is e<>nfi.nncd by a dose el(llntinarion of

v. 3Sb, which presents a reversal not only of jesus 7 rejection and death (using
assumpcion language), but also (possibly) of jerusalem's presenr siruation of
abandonment.
,, •• '/ U 11 you ... •

1\IYCA> UIJIV:
Q 13.3Sb, lor a number of reasons, has been considered a tutning·point

in the saying. Advoc::ates of a thoroughly sapicntial interpretation of the
Jerusalem Lament had to acknowledge that something anomalous to the
Wisdom myth is introduced in v. 35b, when the one who djsappears returns
again at the acclamation of jerusalem. Furthermore, rbc stark declaration
concerning the abandoned house (v. 35a} finds., a"-ording to ~omc scholars, a
47. Robinson, 'BuiJding Blocks', p. lOS.

48. See abo Q 11.51: "''"a:~~ ,.o.,j MI«O'TI'IPiov .:al wV oiKou (Robi:n.son et al.~
Critl't:41.l Edition, pp. 288-89).
49. See Q 6.42.; 7.2.5; 7.27: 7.34; 10.3; 11 .31·32.; 13.35; 17.23 (twi. .).
SO. So Sreck,lsrM~ pp. 228- 29; Schulz, Spnubq..III, pp. 356-57.
S I. So Hoflow>n, Sh<din<, p. 17.5: Schulz, Spnubq...U., p ..!$7.
52. So Sreck, ,,.,~ 227·29; d. Schulz, Spnubq..U., p. 357.
53. S«J.S. Kloppenbo~~o ·~riod<onmo and the Da<eo( Matk',JBL 124(2005),
pp. 419-SO (<48 on Q ll.3S•).
104 Post-Monetn Vindication of Jesus in tl>• Sayings Gospel Q
positive counterboalance in the possibility of a restored relationship between

the people o f Jerusalem and their God when they finally say, 'Blessed is the
Coming One in rhe name of t he Lord', Finally, the presence of the formula
"ty(.) U~iv :.n the beginning of the verse is a clue of some kind o f shift,
perhaps even to the hand of the Q redactor (sec also Q 11.S1 b).
A good starting·point for the study of v. 3Sb, therefore. is an e.xamination
of the use of the Myc.:J u~iv formula in Q. lt occurs in Q material (with
Mauhew and Luke in agreement) founeen rimes, and in Q settings in either
Man:hcw or Luke at least eighteen times. This means the fo[mu la t~.ppcars
in aiJ compositional mara o f Q; this is not surprising, given how common
it is i.n the jesus traditions.S+ The formula a lso occurs in minimal Q with a
variety of C"Onjunctions, adverbs, or prepositional phrases. Marthew is iond
of reformulating its Q occurrences according to bjs customary Cxt.~~v Ai yw
UIJiv. which is a lso frequl!nt in Mark.s.r Luke's use seems SOm!!what more
restrained.
What is most significant a bout the formula is the fact that there. seems to
be a consis·rcncy in its application in Q. The formula is characteristic: of jesus•
sptech. and so it is used in tht concexr o f an ass.eve.rative or pronouncement
of Jesus. Schulz argued that the formula was typical of rhe later Q material
and that its fu nction was to imroduce not independent sayings but rather
interpretative comments.'• In his study of the formula, Saro proposed a
prophetic origin and application of Aiy(o) UIJi vF Klau~ 8-trger noted that it
never 3ppears in a paraenetlc cootexr.·5' All these observations arc apt. Yet
it appears rhar J..iy<iJ UlJlv in Q very frequently precedes a statemenc thar
injects either an element of 1he marvellous or a reversal of some aspect of
the context. A few examples will suffice.
The 6rsr use of >.iyw VlJIV in Q has john as speaker. He says. 'Do not
(begin) to say to yourselves, .. We have Abraham as our father ", for I n~n
you that God is able to raise up children for Abraham from these stones• (Q
3.8). john reve($es the hearen• claim on ancesrral privilege with the shocking
snnemenr that such privilege could be extended, God-willing. to stones.
Jesus• statement about the faith of the centurion (Q 7.9) also contains an
a$p«t of t he marvellous (0' h)ooUs' i&aUIJamv) and a reversal of the expected:
'I te.U you, I have not found such faith in IsraeL' Similarly. Q 6.27 signals a
54. For a discussion of the }WyCOJ ~iv formula in Q. partkutarly with refercnc:e to
lhe recbctiQnooe.:rirical question of tM formula'S origin where: it (lo(;eu.rt in Q matetiaJ in only
one of the cwo evangelists,~ Ncirynck. 'Recent ~vdopmcnts•, pp. 5~9. Neicync,k's
conclusion: ' i t ap~.ars that in mo~t insuncts whetc the )Jy(o) U!Jiv formula is pecu.Ji:tr
tO Matthew or Luke it can he a$tigned to M.atthea.n or Lukan red:a~cion. Q red.a('f:iOn is
probable in 6,27 (?); 10.12; 11,S 1; 12,22. Other instances- in Q are more likely tradirioml'
(p. 69). Ntityodt app:arendy omitted Q J,3.3$b from th.i$ short lis-L~ p. 66).
SS. Mt. 31 times; Mk.14 times~ Lk. 6 times.
S6. .Xbui>,Sp"'chqutlk, p. St.
57. Saco, Q und Prophe#e. pp. 2.31-46.
58. X. krger, Die AMctn Worre juu: Utu Unurtucbtmg zum Problem du
4
I.Agil.im4tion itt t~poka/yptisdJer Rede (BZNW, 39; Berlin: de Gruytet, 1SJ70). p. 90.
The Death <1nd Asswnption of jesus in Q I 3.34-3S lOS
rtversal: the Bea titudes clofe with an emphasis on ~rseeurion (6.22·23 1 ~veo
apan from what might bt a lar.r deur.ronomisric addition in 6.2Jc), but the
following 1eaion on non-retaliation (6.27-33, 3Sc) btgins with jesus saying.
'But I tell you (... ),love your enemies .. .' (6.27).
Along these: lines, Aiyc.J Upiv sometimes appears in Q with comparative
forms or figures of speech: •] te:U you, among those born of women nonC' (is
greater) than john; yet the least in the kingdom of [God) is greater than he'
IQ 7.28); ' I tell you, it will bt more toleroble on that doy ( ... )lor Sodom [... )
than forthot eiry'(Q 10. 12; see also Q 10.14, Mt. 11.24); "But I tell you, not
even Solomon in all his glory was arrayed like one of t hese' (Q 12.2?); ' I tell
you~ t·hcrc is more joy' over the one rhan over the nincry ..nine {Q 15.7).
The uce of ).i yGt.> U~'iv may be classified according to how 'he statement it
introduces is related ro the pr·ccedlngcontcxt. In cheuset where t he Cormula
occurs wi1 hin 11 major textual unit, or to use Schulz's terminology, where it
inrroduca an interpretative statemem, Aiyw V~iv has a function an:~.Jogous
lo <hat of a conjunction, dther advcl'J3tive {disjunctive) or coordinating
(copulauve,. h has an adversative usc where it introduces a statement
reversing some Upec:t of the: preceding context, and a coordinating usc:
where it introducct a su.rcmmt building upon some aspect of the preceding
concur. In othcr instances.. thc C()llfextu•l function of Aiyw Uuiv ls bcner
defined as introdue1ory, where the formula be-gins a major textual unit, or as
p;arcnthetical, wbc:rc it interrupts thc Row of a Kntcncc."' Overall, it stcm.s
a characteristic of the matcrjaJ introduud by the >Jyc..) Vuiv formula thou
it contain• some surpri.ring Ot unbtlievable temark. As the following tables
show, many of the uses of Myr.> u~iv in Q- even some Of those QUested by
only one of the evangelists - arc advcrs.adve, inrroducing a sroatemcm of
reversal, and most of its uses serve co highlight something unexpected or
marvcllour, often using comparative forms or figu res of speech.
Table 4.1 below shows the fourteen cerrain us~ of Al yw U)J'iv in Q,
and Tobie 4.2 the other eighteen uses in the context of Q material. 1'hese
tables sho w the additions of Matthew and Luke and a elaui6cation ol the
contextual function of the formu la (adversative, coordin:ating, introductory,
rcitcrarivc, reorienting). The last oolumn in each table gives a designation
of the contcnu of the pronouncement which follows the formula: whc1her
ir cotuains a rcvcnal (R), a marveUous or astounding statement (M), or a
comparative fe<m or 6guce (C) .
.S9. For fXJmpk, }.lyw U.,iv signals a shift to anochcr cy-pe of maceriaJ tn Q 12.22
(if Lt.. l2."· 21 wu in Q); but in Q 7.26 ('Yes, 1 tdl you. and more than a propbct') and
l l..!1b c·IYtNAmen). I a:IJ rou, it will be lrcquirtd) of that gtnt.ration'J. it introduees a
parcnchcdcal aurc.mcnt cmpOuiUng or ~iterating tomf asp«t of rhc prcviow 4;onten.
106 Post-Mortem Vindi<.ation of jesus in lbt Sayings Grupe/ Q
Table 4.1: ~tyc.> v~lv in Q

ML u. Co.tt• nNl ~ Co.tanb ofs.y.q
QUb .l.?b'rOP J.8b,ip ed•uuci¥t" RM

Q,.2?
Q?.~
J.44 ;.,w 01
S.JObci~~
6.l701M
,,,.
t..d•·truti.Vinttod«~otr
a,.,_natiV<J
•RMC
Q 1.16/, ll. ,w:{ 7.1,VOJ' ,.rcm.htflc.l c
Q 1.l8a IUb Ol!li• 7.lfla inuodouorr RMC
Q IO.ll IO. Uci~ 10.12. C:()(Jfdisl'liiiJ MC
Q 10.24 1.)..11 dll~,.yOp, 10.24 yr.ip c:oordiaJdn& MC
Q ll.Sib U.UOt~l!• U.Sibvo! Jlf-lt'flf.hctiul M
Q U.ll +.zs a,o· roi:rro 12.%2&4 'Riinc iou\lduc:cw, M

Q 12.21 6.21 &' 12.17 6i ~~narlw RM C
Q IL44 24.47 G>Ai• u .... ~ coordiAanns M
QU..SJ S.lf O.,fl,. >.4'fC.IGOI 11.$9 110! <:OO!ili-inc M
QU..l1b 2l.J9yQp ll.lSb 1&'1 ado"etttn"f't AM
QU.7 IS. IJ I IIIi• IS.i CCK~fdi!Wlf.rtc MC
Given the vaciery of additions to the formula, it is clear that the saying
was not fixed in Q, but could be adapted to the needs of the context with
whatever conjunctio~ adverb, or prepositional phrase was most suitable. ln
fo ur instance.s {those given in italics), Matthew and Luke agree in preserving
Q•s exact wording. Jn six of fourtec:n cases, >.iyw UJ,J'i v introduces a statement
which reverses some aspect of the previous context, mostly with some
dement which could be considered surprisin.g o r marvcllou.$. Of the other
cases., most contain either a marvellous clement (seven of eight), a compar·
acive form or figure {four of eight), or both (rhree of eight). A similar picrure
emerges from the Q mate.rial where only one evangelist bas the fo rmula; this
might corroborate the assessment of the core fo urteen.
Table 4.2: ~tyc.> vplv in Q Contexts..

... ....
Q 10.1-f
M'r.. 11.2:4
60.
11.lZ U.'t11
U.1 4 ~r),i" -
- (d .Q 10.11.. 14t
In me Matthew and Luke oolwnn.s, .. dub t-)

c..tot..J f..niM
COOI'4inarlDt
(QO(di na.ri~~t~ lMl
in~tC$ that
CIXII~
MC
MC
~
of S..,U.
panlk.l verse is.

!~eking. and sttilcdbrough (c:.g., +9:-Ht indic:nes dtat parallel Q ~rial is prt:Sent but Xiyc.>
\is,liv is not. Thus in the (;Olwnn 'Coo'kXtU.a1 Function', the Ierum MandL indica~ wbtthcr
Xi~ U~lv h:u been ~ueued in irs MaahaWl Of l ubn coott.n. ln the colwnn 'Cooter'U$ oi
Sa }'ins', the dcsisnatio.. 11ormal thin}' and 'lto"""l shift]' indicate..,.. ol the funnW.. to
marie a sb.ilt ~idw:r from ooe form of maa:dal to anocber (e.g., in Lk.. 11.9, from parabk to
paraenesis), or from one mptc co another (e.g., in Q 12.8 (l.Jc.), from a discu.u ion of appro-
pNte fear ro one of coofcssi:ng or 6t:n:ying the 5oo of man). The desig.narioo.'(reitc:nrion.J'
ind.Ctc:t a \lit tO teituatt (oftt.n with exparuMxl) ~ aspoa o( tht. p~vious concen.
....
........ -
The D•11th and Amonption of].sus in Q I J.J4-JJ
u. ,_..... _ .,.....
C:.....-'~
_
107
QU.A
-- JU.i~
U...lli~~-- ~~·•
.
,.,~,~;..,._, fLI
, lloo..O ...Iol
Q ll.J
QU.t
Mf.IJ.l'
Q 11. $1b
Q IJ.lt
-
ll.JI W ~
...... oJ.. ... 4U.

t.u .,.;
1LIIi
- fd.Qn.lo,
U..JlbW.;' i.)JJ
_.......
,,.,,.,..._,
~I!Uh.... (MI
illhenarlw
1,- ·-J
l. .f ..iltl
......
leoo.ui *W.I
""
IJ.J4 Pformdtnic•ll..dwrwl-lt
Q u.:u l .l l " ...... tnt!'Udw1UW"t (Q 7. f /101 lreltmt;.,.j
Lt . l4,lt - 14,1<4 ~p cootdiaMlnl (r.-n"l.doaJ
Lk-.1$.10
QU,17
-
s. are.,~ •.,.,
U . IO
..,.. coordill•ina
coordW.an~~t(M I
lklr-.•1 lbift)
ld . Mdl, I.Milbanj
.... l•lh ... ...,,eti

017.4
Q11,,
11.11eot
.... i lll:I'OitiiCIOfl' . MJ
~O.•>~~t~(W ! lrt~tf'fti'-J
0 17, ) 4 .....
17.Jtbtii'Q•,._II
..... 1 7.~
......
cemt~ (LI
..............
t-
QlfU
Wit. lf.lt tt.u•• td. u. UJ4.lOI ...... . , ........_
... c
h is no1 swpri.sing that a far less consistent picture develops here., for
whcr~ the formula is only auested by one of the cvan&cliau, its addition
is quice likely." A few tentative obse:rvations may nill bt made, howe-ver,
in inJtancu whcl'c there could be ground$ for supposing thar the formula
was original to Q. In Q 10.14 (Mt. 11.22), for innance, ~lyr.> vtiiv may
have been original to Q.n h s use hete ro inrroduc:e a con•paradve statement
is consilient with the Q U$agc demonstrated from the core fourteen uses.
Q '12.5 1 (Lk.) might havt contained an adversative u~ of the formula ('No,
[I tell you), but division'), although the formula is typically not used io Q as
an interieotion, as ir it here. Similarly, Q 19.26 (Lk.} eoncluder the parable
of the ralen11 with the •hocking saying, '[I tell you that) every one who has
will be given more; but fro m the on.e who has not, even what he hu wiU be
rakcn away', althou,gh the presence of Aiyw U~i~ in Q here it not certain.
This brief examination demonstrateS a ~larively eonsisten[ use of tbe
"iyw Uuiv formula where its pre:sencc in Q is certain. The formula does
noc typically introduce a ch.aogc in s-peaker - wirh 1hc cxccprion. possibly.
of its uw on the W'11dom saying (Q IJ.5Jb). It almost always, on the other
hand., sisnalr rhac tbc following a$$C:Verative conta ins c:irher sorm rcvc:na1
of a situation in the immediately previous conrexr, or a soreme:nt of rbe
61. So Ntitynck, 'll=nr Developmmn', p. 69.

61. Thill i11 beaU!IC Q 10. I2 also conuifts ~yo<.) Ut.~iv in QOajunaton with a paralld
nructure (darlvc ol indircc:t object + iv (Tfi} ~ipq rq,[O&(o)S') • 0-\.-uTOnpov lOTat • ij +
d.rivc o( compariton). Lukt: may b.:tvt: omitud W (onnula here. Mt. 10.2Jb·2.4 aoeemt to
be redactioru11l, UJin\il•ring Q l0.12 to Q 10.13 ~1 4.
!08 Post-Momm Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
marvrllous or s hocking, ohe.n (though not always) with a comparative. This

is of great significance for Q 13.35b, for there is now more to say about the
precise nature of the formula's use than only that it introduces a conduding
commem on previous mouerlai.'J AiyUl Uitu in Q 13 .35b can reasonably be
expected to inuoduc.e a statement of reversal, or of something marvellous, or
both. Thls does indeed seem to be the case, if it is correct tO $te in v. 35b a
use of assumption language to exprtss the logic of Jesus• post-mortem vindi·
cation <tnd e"altatlon to his future eschatologica l rote as the Son of man.
The Assumption of Jesus:

Post-Mortem Vindication,. Exaltation, and Pa,-ousUI
Steck thought a dose paraUcl to the •you will nor see me' sentence in v, JSb
may be found in Sir. 15.7: 'The foo1ish will not obrain her n.e., Wisdom},
and sinnc:n; will not see her' (LXX: &v6pSS' O:~apTCAlAoi oU ~~ i&..lotv aUnl~o~}.
The parallel is almost exacr .~ What is most sui king is the use of oY ~t} wich
the aorist subjun~tive of Op6:w: 'youfthcy will never sec ... '. This dose verbal
parallel confirmed for Steck rha1 Wisdom is the s peaker throughout the
Jerusalem Lament, and that v. 3.Sb was not a Christian addition to the saying.
In hjs opinion, it is a statement 'in which the judgmem announced in v. 35a
is worked out in view of the <;onn«tion of the addressees to Wisdom'.". Thus
the judgment announced in v. 35a - \OoU clq,inal 0 oh:os Ut.~Wv - is com1tcttd
with the 'AS<:cnsus-Moment' of the: wisdom myth and expressed explicitly in
v. 35b: 'the judgment lies in the fact that it is no longer possible under any
condition to see Wisdom'.66
ln some ways, the view argued above that Q 13.35a refers to rhe
withdrawal of Wisdom- and thus to the deutcronomistic view of tht remov;J.I
of the divine protection without which Jerusalem (a1td brae I) would be opt:n
to divine punishment meted out by enemies- depends upon a similar view of
Q !3.35b. For if Jesus is speaking as Wisdom in Q !3.34-35, rhen his disap-
pearance is- the di$i!ppcarance of Wi5dorn, as seen in 1 Enoch 42. However, a
Jtricrly wisdom-oriented interpretation of oU ~~ lrSrJ1i IJt iws f~~u 0l'e] eimru
is u1table to explain the rerurn of the speaker as {or with?) the •coming One'.
Funher, it would require - as ir did (or Sreck - understanding v. 35b as a
reiteration of the judgment described in v. JSa, which would create problems
for interpreting the blessing in the Ps. 117.26 LXX citation.
Despite rhe linguistic similarity, there is one jmporrnnt difference betwec:n
Sir. 1S. 7 and Q 13.3Sb. W ithin their respective conrexts, the rwo texts refer
to very different scena.rios. Sir. 15.7 stresses the inabiJiry of the foolish (v. 7a},
the •inful (7b), rhe a.rogant (Sa), and the untruthful (8h) 10 obrain wisdom.
63. X bulr.. Sp'""'/xp•~U~, pp. 348-49.

64. Steck, lsrotl, p. 23S.
65. Sttt;k, fSro#l, p. 23.1 (au1hor'¥ ttansflujoo).
66. Steck. lsra~l, p. 235.
The Death and Assumption of Jesus in Q 0.34-35 109
Thus 00 J.l~ 'i&axuv aUn)v rneans simply thar the wicked cannot understand
or perceive Wisdom: they cannot st~ her now, and never will. To a cenain
extent a similar emphasis is also present in Q 13.34·35, where the-references
ro rhe murdered prophets and t he repeated rcjec:tion of WISdom's (jesus')
appeals stress jerusalem's impenitence. However, oU ,.ni i6rrri \J£ dM.s nor
mean that 'Je.rusalem• cannot understand or perceive Je$us. but really that
he will disappc_.r: that is to say, •you (the children of Jerusalem) can see me
now, but at some future rime you will not see me, until you say, •siessed is
the Coming One in the name of the Lord"'.
Several of the assumption narratives discussed in rhc previous chapter used
'not-seeing' language to describe rhe disappearance of the subject. The same
language found in Q 13.35b (a negated fo•m of (>pow) was also p•csent in
assumption narradve.s about Elijah (2 Kgs 2.12 LXX: Kai oUK ti&v a\iTOv
iT1}, ' 7 Xisouthros {8erossos: oU" iTt 04>8~vat ), Romulus {Piutarc.h~ Rom.
27.5: oVTE ~ipo; w~&l] oc.\paTO$), and Proteus (lucian, Peregr. 39: oU
IJ~V it:.:~pO:TO ys)." Such language functions synonymously to O~av- disap·
pearance language. Although cucain terms for assumpcion (in particular
~ETOTt&ri~t and O.prrci~w and their rel~ted fo rms} were used euphemistically
for early death or for soul ascent, ~not .-seeing' and 'disappearance' were not,
since disappear~.oce or ·not-seeing' language sugges's cbe physical removal
of the whole person.
Furthermore, Q 13.35b suggesrs a post-mortem assumption, because the
rejec-tion of Jesus in Jerusalem (v. 34) culrnin:ued in his death. The preV'ious
chapter also demonstrated tbat post-mortem assumption was o.o t unheard-of
either in Graeco-Roman or in Jewish materials. even though assumption was
typically considered an escape from deatb. Jn Greek literature, post-monem
assumptions- the disappearance or removal of corpses, even fro1n tombs or
funeral pyrC$ - were usuaJiy connected with the subsequent veneration of the
assumed indlvidual as an immortal. In Jewish literature, as seen in Wisdom
2-5 and Testament of Job 39, assumption language could also be applied
co individuals who had clearly died. Wis. 4.10· 11 uses language drawn
from Gen. 5.22, 24 lXX (•uap£OTOS and ~·TaT•&!i~•), and also O.p"<i~"'•
uncommon in the jewish assumption uadition. The author of the Book of
Wi$dOm combined topoi from Graeco· Roman eonsolation lite-rature and
the Jewish assumption tradition in order to exp(c:Ss the post-mortem vindi-
cation and exaltation of the 'righteous one'. T. Job 39.Jl , like Q 13.35b,
featu res language: from the Elijah narrative: the common assumption verb
oma~~""'• along with the morif of unsuce<:ssful search (cf. 2 Kgs 2.9,
10, 11; 2.16-18 lXX). In both these c;ues, a post-mortem assumption
reversed the injustice of an untimely death and 'elevated' the indivldual(s} to
an exalted position in he.aven {Wis. 5.1 ~ 5; T. job 40.3). The disappearance
67. SIX also 2 Kgs 2.10 LXX: it.~~~~· Ovo.Ao~~~n,cw.

68. See 2lso Mk 9.8 a nd Mt. 17.8 (loU.:iT1( oU6iva tT&w). which suggeu 2n
aS&umpc:ion-likc removal of MOIICS and f.lijah from the: sc.me of jesus· transfiguration.
110 Post-Morum Vindi<ation of jesus in the SayinK• Gospel Q
language in Q 13.3Sb on these ground& suggests an assumption·relate.d

vindication for jesus, and there appear to be three intc:ucla.red aspects tO thjs
vindication: assumption as a sign of divine favour; as a means o( heavenly
exaltation; and as an entry into special eschatological function.
1. Assumption and Di!An~ Favour
Throughout. the Jewi$h tradition and ebewhere in ancient literature

assumption is always understood as a sign of d ivine favour. As seen above,
Enoch was 'pleasing' to Gcxl (Gen. 5.22, 24 LXX); Josephus alludes to the
idea that Moses was taken up because of his 'surpassing virtue' {Ant. 4.326)i
and the 'righteous one' was beloved by Gcxl (Wis. 4.1 1). Also, in the Gueco-
Roman consolation tradition and in Wis. 4.10~14, assumption language was
u~d with t.he the.me of divine love tO console th<»:e mourning an untimely
death. Thus Jesus' assumption, hinted at in Q 13.35b, would have been
considered a sign of special divine favour or blessing, essentially reversing
the shame of his death by crucifixion, implied in the immediately previous
material about his rejection in Jerusalem {13.34).
Ar rhis point Ztller's objection may be reconsidered~ that resurrection,
nor assumption, was the more appropriate expression of God•s vindication
of the crucified jesus, so that the assumption refere.nce in Q 13.35b inren·
tionally omits any reference tO the death of jesus." However. an iodividual'$
death did not impede the use of assumption language to express divine inter-
vention. But more ro Zeller's point, it appears that assumption would have
been ;usr as suitable a vindication as resurrection, given the way assumption
language and the theme of divine lo\'e come together in Graeco-Roman
consolation materiaJs and especially in Wisdom 4-S. In fact, assumption may
even have been a: more su.itable expression tha_n resurr~tion, which normally
was thought of as a corporate (rather than individual) mode of vindication.
Where.as resurrectlon reverses., by God's initiative, Jesus' wrongful death,
the emphasis on divine favour in the assumpti.on traditions overcomes the
shame (or cur"') associated with crucifixion (Deut. 21.22-23; Gal. 3. 13).
Assumption language can also supply the basis for Q's belief in an exalted
post·mortem Jesus and for its expectation of his return as the Son of man.
2. Assumption and Heavenly Exaltation
Figure5 taken away by God frequen tly were considered in ancient literature
to have an exalted posr·assumption sraros. ln Q 13.3Sb, jesus refers to
hirnself as the Coming One: 'You will noc see me until (the time comes)
when you say, .. Blessed is the one who comes (0 ipxbt.aei.IOS) in the name of
the Lord•.' The title expreS$CS a belief in jesus' return, yet ex.ahation and
69. Zelk-r. •£ntrikkuns'. pp. Sl9, 518.

Th• Duth and Anumprion of'""' tn Q 13.34·35 111
oschatolosical function ~ttm tO go hand in hand u resui!J of assumption in

the j....;sh tndition, panirularly because thO« who hod been taken away
by God and who were cxp«ted to return <itlt<r as ...:hatological rukr or
judge were thought of as hang reserved in heaven unril the proper rime:. The
exaltations of the 'righteous ooe' in Wis. 5.1·5 and of job's children in T.job
40.3 art unutual because their roles a.re not exprcul)' eschatological This
.seems to be: a dcvcJopmcnt from the more common view that che heavenly
exaltation of the assumed was sp«i_6 cally connected wit-h a future csch:uo-.
logical function.
Thus, the idea of assumption expres-ses a belief in Jesus' exalted post-
mortem nate in a manner quire different from rC$urrccdon. In Zeller's words~
'tf jesus thereby [vi:t., through resurrection] attained to a spcciaJ dignity,
it is because the c.onviction of his cnchronemcnt as Son o( God {see Rom.
1.3... ) and Lord was c:onnec:tcd to it cady on. though under unclear circum-
stances.'10 With rcsucrec:rion, tbett"fo~-, some intermediate step is required in
order ro conv-ey that the ri5Cn Jesus is also the exalted ChriSt: normally, the
enthronement imagery of Psalm 2 is either erpressed or taken for granted
(see, for example, Acts 2.31-36; Rom. 8 .~ )." For Luke, as arsued above,
juus' ascension accomplishes the same purpose (Acts 2.33; S.J I ). With
assump<ion, oo the other hand, because according to jewish belief the ooe
whom God takes away was ai.o expcct<d to play some son of spKial rok
in r:hc eschaton, th-at person was considered ro ~ waitjn& in heaven, in an
exalted Slate, for that role to be inaugurated.
At Haufe put it, •o"th and CC$UUecrion do ncx constitute a bridge to
a l pKial heavenly-eschatological function. on Barnaba< Lindars noted this,
and tried to carsue that assumption, not resurrection. was the theological
impetus behind the early Christian belieF in Jesus• post-mortem eX-altation
and Parousia. ln bis view, assumption was not ttchnically necessary to J«ua'
exoltntion, for '<he de•tb of a supremely r ighteous man could be interpreted
as the ttans.ition from earthly life to a position in heaven appropriate to
Cod's designated agent uf judgment•,nt.indar• also argued that tc'surrection
in rhe NT typicaUy has this kind of exaltation scc:nario in view: •the language
is that of resurrectiont but the meaning is ex.alrat-ion'.7" What Lindars was
miuin_g, however.. was a textual basis for cbe assumption o( jcsus.7" and clea.r
examples of the u~e of assumption as a posr··m ortem divine rescue.~'
70. Zeller. •£nutKlq ', p. S29 (.autbor"'f tr.~mtartoa).

71. S.. I. I o..!•n, 'n.. Apocalypcic Mydo ODd 1h< Dnth o( O•ri•f. BJltL 57 (1'7S~
...,. J"-a1(J7s-• n
n. t-uw~. 'Eattiidtunc', p.. t09.
7J. Undara, •Apocalypt;c Mydo', p. 380.
74. Undan. 'Apocalypric Mydo-. p. 380.
7S. Undara, •Apocalypric Myth', p. 369.
7,, Und.trs, •ApocaJyptic; Mytb'. p. 318. Lindus argurd. not implawibly, that &.inte
Sheol ia: not outside- C"oocf't pow«, •tbt enltit;on ro tht ~venl·y rutm don not depend
on noidance of death', pa.rtiwJarly giorm t:bt- belief that 'the aouls or the- ri&heeous a~
commonly (e.g•• WiJ. 2.23-3., ; 4 MtiUdbt~s; Mk ll. J8-27; U . 16.19·3 1J rcprnenttd as
Wlitins in • tc.c.c of c:ocn~rativc: blin ~mriJ dx gentnl rnunection' (J78).
112 Post-Mortem Vindication of Je.sus in rhe Sayings Gospel Q
How relevant to Q 13.35b is the assumption of Enoch and his identiJicatwn

with 'that Son of man' in 1 Et~och 7G-7l? In Zeller's view, thi!i was the
analogy that demonstrated his case for ass-umption in Q 13.3Sb." While
numerous problems attend the issue of Enoch"s identification with the Son of
man in 1 Enoch 71 - textual, compositional, and chronological uncen:aindes
-clearly the identilKation was made {or at least later texts unde~tood that
I Enoch 71 had made the identification: 3 F.mx:b; Tg. Ps.·J. Gen. 5.26). In
any case~ ZeliC'r is correct to speak onJy in terms of an analogy. For even if 1
E.n. 71.14 is exduded on one count or anothe~. there are other texrs which
confirm the consistency of the correlation between assumption and exalted
heavenly srarus and furure esch.arological function.
3. Assumption and Special £schatological Functt'on
The third aspect of jesus' vindication in Q 13.3Sb is refiected in the expec·

tation of hls ret1.1rn. In t he Jewish tradition assumption and special escha-
tological function were fairly consistently linked. Here in Q 13.35b, Jesus
announce-s his return as 'the Coming One• (0 ipxOIJt:VOS }. This title is used
three times in Q as a dc:signa.tion of jesus, with particular emphasis on his
escharologicaJ role, but also with refere nce ro his e-.archJy career as- demon..
strative- of his future- capaciry.'t Although the tide is not as common in Q as
•Son of man', it is still of great significance m Q's eschatological expectation.
Kloppenborg, for instance, understood the use of 0 ipx01JtV05 as occurring
in a logical progression," and Allison has seen it as a s ignificam marker of
a uni6ed c:omposit.ional strategy in Q. so
o
First, ipxovovos is the one announced by john \Q 3. 16). Q 3.16·17
present$ seven! difficulties: it has a dose Markan parot11el {M k 1.7; sec otlso
Jn 1.26·27, 33b and Acts 13.24·25), its original unicy in Q is the subj..:t
of debate~ and Mauhew and Luke do not agree in using 0 Epx01..UHIQ5.81
77. ZeJ.Iec. •EntrUckung'. p. 517.

78. On 0 ipx®G"VOS as a title in Q, see R. l.aufen. Die DoppeiUIHrli~ferungn. Jet
Logienquelle uttd de$ MttrlKSevang~lWms 1.81\.B., S4; K6nignein~ Bonn: Hansuin. 1980),
pp. 407-09; Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, p. 370.
79. Kk>ppcnb<>rg. Fonnat~n, p. 94: Q 3.16 and 13.3Sb betny' an ' idi-om of ap«~lyp
ticism' but Q 7.19 i.s rt'lated tO 'the presence of the escbaton in jesus' (p[escnt) activity•.
80. Allison$~ four suges of •developmt:l\t' in Q wilh t t5(»Ct to JesU$ u the Coming
One: '(1) John prophesies one who is to oome (3.16·17}; {2) jesus implicitly associates
himJOelf with. haiab 61 (6..20*23); (3) j esus, in answer ro a question about th~ coming one,
u&Ociates himxlf with Js.ai~h 61 and other teJCts (7.18..23); (.f) JesU$ <:alb himself "'tbe
one who comtS" (1.3.35)' {enumeration added). Me concludes, 'Surely this christologicat
sequence is due to deliberate design. aod it is nanual to assign the four tcxh to the 5amc
redacrjonaJ. stage' (Allison,)eU~.s Traditio", pp. 6-7).
81. See KJoppenhors. Formati()"• pp. 106---07; H. F1edd~rmano, 'John a~n d the
Co®ng One CMan 3 :11· 12// Luke 3:16· 17)', SBLSP 23 (1984), pp. 377-84 (378-79);
jacobson, f:irtt Gospel~ pp. 83-85; Tuc:ken, Q and the 1/istory, pp. 116-25. Robinson et
al. Criric.o/ E.dirio,., pp. 1~15, reconstructS Q 3.16b with 0 ipx~OJOS' 2!1 original to Q.
The Death and Assumpuon of Jesus in Q 13.34-35 113
Nevertheless, b<cause of the parallel use on t he lips of j ohn in Q 7.19,

the title here is probably original to Q.n. Here, the figure is one o f future
judgmeor,tJ whose: task iris to separate the wheat (for the graoaty) £rom the
chaff (for the fire, Q 3.17). Q does not make it explicit here rhar Jesus is rhe
futurt tS<;hatologi<:al figure, although - even lf Matthew's 01'1'1ow ~ov was nm
original to Q 3. 16 - the elevatt'd view of ]<:$US in the remptadon (it ui.Os ,1
Too 8£oo, Q 4.3, 9b) might point in rhar direcrion. "The rwo orher uses of rhe
ritle (Q 7.20; 13.3Sb) make irclear rhat Jesus is the Coming One.
In Q 7.18· 19, John anempts tO verify Jesus' identiry as the Coming One:
his disciples ask, aU ,1 o opxoui\IOS ii [[inp!Jov npoooo•<>l~•v; (Q 7.19)."
Jesus' answer is not straightforward, but aHud" toPs. 146 and Isaiah (lsa.
26.19; 29. 18-19; 35.5-6; 42.6-7; 61.1) in a manner clo..,)y paralleled by rhe
Qumran tcxr 4Q521.'-' "The reply shifts the focus from a (future) eseharo-
logical figure - since, aher all, John's question implies a comparison betWeen
Jesus and the figure- he earlie.r announcC"d - tO je5us' p r<:$COt (eKhatologic.aH
ministry. The following m.acarism confirms that Q ha~ jesus implying an
affirmative, though reorienting, answer tO John's question: ll!o-1 ~a11!cip16)
IOTov 0, !ixv ~~ 01Cav6al.oo9(i iv i~of (Q 7.23).
"The tirle occurs again in Q 13.35b. Mosr scholars, as already seen, idenrify
the Coming One here with the Son of man; this is justifiable, not only because
Q evidendy teJers to Jesus wich both titles, but also because the future Son of
man sayings in Q look ahead ro his coming (Q 12.40; see also Mr. l 0.23) or
his day or parousia (Q 17.24, 26, 30). Another tilcror behind this Linkage is
probably rhe (adverbiaVperipbrastic) u"" of ipx~ovc>s with rhe ' son of man'
CJCpression in Dan. 7 .13 LXX: .:ai i6oU tJtTO: TWv \lt¢1£AWv ToU oVpavoU ~~
ulO, av6poonou ipxo~••OS' ~· (cf. Mk 14.64). Bur since rhe tirleo ipxo~OVOS'
is somewhar rare in Q in comparison wirh the expression 'Son of man', the
question al'ises why Q should express a belief in Jesus" assumption as the
means of his post-mortem exaltation tO await his fu ture C$Chatologlcal role
with 0 ipx0tJtv05 instct4d of 0 viOs 1'00 (n.16pc.lrrov. Perhaps rhe redacror
was consrrained by the wording of Ps. 117.26 LXX, which could have
suggested itself on other grounds: the positive associations in the context of
a <Oming judgment, or maybe t he lack of blessing coming from jerusalem's
82. Mt. 3.11 read1 0 eX Cnrioc.:a1.1oo ipx~IIOS' iaxupOnpos- ~ ioT1v, whil~ U. 3.16
does not use the:- expression 0 'Px¢1Jt\.IOS'. luke wa.-s probl-bly infiueoc:ed b)· Mk 1.7: tpxna•
0 tox:upCmpOS' uou.
83. Th<: 6nite verbs in Q 3 .17 are aU future, and ~niot• fQ 3.16) was probably
t l$0 in Q, deipite the M3rkan p~~Jiel {Mk 1.8); $et Rohin$0n et ~I.. C'iti~l Edition, pp.
1'1-17.
84. Roh U\1101'1 tt :al., C..riticol Edition, pp. 118-19; the q uc:;tion hu been duplicated
in Lk. 7.20.
85. $«the discussion in Collins, Sc~tt-rand Sta,, pp. t 17- 22. Collins concludes, 'it
is quite JKn~bk that the author oi the S..yings Source knc:w 4QS21; at the k.ast he drew
on a commoo rrodirion', iince the fact that both texts mention the rca.w:rccrioo of the dead
~MOt be put down tO coinciden~e 1122). See $imil.uly KloppenbollJ. fxC41hfti1'lg Q, p.
405 0. 72.
114 Post-Mort- Vindication of je.us in the Sayings Gospel Q
bouse (compare Q 13.35a with Ps. 117.26b LXX)." Allison suggests that
an eschatological interpretation of Ps. 117.26a LXX is inevitable given the
view that Jerusalem and the temple are under threat of judgment: if Q 13.35a
alludes toPs. 117.26b LXX and J« 12.7, a present blessing from the hou•e is
impossible and thus Q 13.3Sb looks forward eschatologically." On the other
band, it may also be that Q 13.35b uses assumption language togerher wirb
Ps. 118.26 in order to solidify the claim thar Jesus was the 'Coming One'
announced by john, if the ..fi.nt ust of the tide was traditional."
Another possibility is rhat Ps. 117.26 LXX was used here because of its
resonances with Hab. 2.3-4 LXX, a tc:.xt in which fpxbJJ£\10) and 0 Oh::a'OS'
occur in close proximity:
10u)T, h1 Opaots t~s Kaap(w Ka't clvanA&'i tis nlpas ~eai oV,. tis K£v0v· iO:v
,Jo-npt\an unopt~vov aurov '"' ipxoprvos ijs"
•al o& PI\ xpovlan.
" iO:v inrooniArrrat, cin' eUOOKel ~ 4'VX'i pou tv aUT4>' 0 ~ OIKatos EK
1fl01'SW5 pOU ~tl0£T<Xt.
l Bccause there: is yet a vision for the appointed tim~ and it will arise at the
end and it will not be in vain; if it should fail~ wait for it, be~ use when it
comes it will come and it will not delay.
• If it should withdraw, my soul would not be pleased with it; bur the
righteous one will live by my faithfulness.
Hab. 2.3 LXX commends i,..lf as a parallel to Q 13.35b on several counts:

the reference to a timely vision (ht Opaa1s ais ka1pOv, rever$ed in Q 13.35b'l
negative use of Opaw for the disappearance of Jesus}, the use of ipx®tvos,
and the use of ~il in close proximity to oV J.lli with the aoritt subjunctive
for an emphatic negative future (00 IJiJ XPOVfOT}). i TTIO'UvQy(.ol ()(:curs both in
Q 13.34 (rwice) and in Hab. 2.5 LXX.
While the referent of ipxopEV05 in Hab. 2.3 LXX is a con>ing vision
{rather than a coming figure), lattr uses of the te.xt take it to refer to the
' Coming One' (Heb. 10.37-38; Acrs 7.52). Richard Hays suggests that
'Srephen•s reference to the eleusis of the Righreous One [in Acts 7.52]
may ecbo a well~esrablished tradition of reading Hab. 2.3-4 as a messianic
prophecy.'" Both August Strobel and Hays supposed that Hab. 2.3 is the
86. See A11i&On.]UM.J Tradition, p. 194.

87. Allison, J,umxtwl)etMs, pp. J6~.
88. See. Kloppeob<>rg, Formalion, pp. 1()4..0.5. 116.
89. R.A. Hays, ""The Righceous One"' u Esc:huo\ogical Dtlivertf': A Case Srudy
in huJ's Apocalyptitc HC".nncmeuOO', in J. MaKus and M.L. Soards (eds.). Apoc4/yptic
"ttd th• Nft41 T~st#mtm (mtsduift j.L. Manyn; JSNTSup, 24; SMffietd: JSOT Pr~ s.,
1989). pp. 191- 215 (195). Set also A. Suobe~ Untn$Uehlnfgm tum ~$ChQto/ogi$eh¥n
V~ngflr'Qbli!m: ON( G,_M Mr $~tjNJI.sch-ttt(hri$dkhnt Gcuhidrt4 IIQn HllboUt.Nk
2.2ff (NuvTSup, 2; U:itkn: lkill, 19611, pp. 47-56; D.·A. Koch, 'Der Text von Hab 2.4b
in der Sep..,.ginu und im Neuen Teoumer11', ZNW 76 (1985), pp. 68-85 (7J n. 25).
The Death and A•$UmfJiion o f jesus;,, Q 13.34·35 115
source of the US< of ipxo~•""> in Q 7.19, though neither bad much to say
about its usc in the context of Q 13.35b." Howeve~ Hays thought that 'once
ho n-chomenos came to be understood as a messianic: ticlt, a midnishic link
berween the Psalm text and Hab. 2.3 would have been in any case vinually
inevitable'.' 1 More recencly_, Allison has suggested Hab. 2.3 as a possible
background to Q 12.42-46, which, as will be argued below, has impOrtant
affinities with Q 13.34-35.»
Hab. 2.3~4 was an imp:>rtant text in early Christiin literature., especially
for Paul, but other sources use similar language <0 that of Hab. 2.3-4 in
their descriptions of exalted figures." Moststriking are Wisdom 2- 5, where
the 4 righreous one• experiences posr-monem exalta.tio~ and the SimilituJu
of EnO<h, where the Chosen One ('that Son of roan') a lso goes by the
des-ignation Righteous One.'• Both these figures (as i[ rurn.s out) experience
•ass-umption• and subsequent exaltation. Importantly, in the pa5$age where it
becomes clear that the assumed Enoch has been identified as or with ' thar Son
of man', that figure's rightcousntS$ is emphasized: as the angel tells Enoch?
'You are that son of man who was born (or righteousness, and righteousness
dwells on you, and the righteousness of the Head of Days will not forsake
you' (1 En. 7t.14)!s Possibly, gjven exegetical connections such as those
presuppOsed in Wisdom 1-5 and the Similitudes of F.nO<h - particularly
because both these texts deal with rbe assumption and exaltation of their
principal 6gurcs - Ps. 117.26 LXX, interprtted as referring to an tschato·
logical figure, was appropriate to Q's depiction of the future appeara nce
of the assumed Jesus. Unforrunarely, several key piec:es of the putde are
missing: neither the Book of Wisdom nor the Similitudes of Enoch refer to
the 'coming' ol the Righteous One, and whereas 0 ipxO~tvos- is an important
title in Q_, righteousness lang-uage is infrequent.' '
Concerning the use of Ps. 117.26 LXX, it was noted e;a,rlie.r that many
scholars chink che acclamarion of blessing will come 'roo lare' for the
90. Suobcl, V.,.;;gemngsprobkm, pp. 265-n: H.ys, ·R;ghteous One', p. 196.

91. Hay., 'R;ghteOU> One', p. 213 n. 15.
92. Allison, lntt'f'tarual J~s.u. pp. 13 1-32. Allison notes thu Q 12.42-46 snd H,b.
2.3 both (1) u k $imilat language to talk about dda y, f2) oonuau the faithful with tbc-
unf:tirhful, :tad (3. tmphuite -tXce5$iYt drink :tS 2 pidalf.
93. Hays.. 'Ri&htcous One". p-p. 193-206 (nc>n·Pauli.ne texts); 206- lllPauJ).
94. l'becon.oc«ion wilh Hab. l .J-4 isdt:uesr in 1 b. J 9.6, whtte rbe 6gure tscaJicd
'the C~n Ooe of righle01J$(1(S$ and £:tirb•.
95. ln 'ddirion, Sf!'t': I En. 46.3 anch:sp«talty 7 1.16-17, where iris .nr~d th:tr those
who follow the path of the Son of man (now Et~«h ) are •the rightcot.ts',
96. W'ilh the exception of i~h ~:cuW&n (Q 7.35). Manh.tw li.S(!t 6i.:o:•os- in rbe.oonrcxr
of the Woes (Q 11.+4, 47, SO, 51 1aod other Q material (Mt. 5.45, cf. Q 6.35; Q 10.24};
Luke uses the- adjective rwice in Qconrcxu (lk.. 12.S7; 15.7). Tht mon significant USotS are
in the Wi5'J()O) sayina, where Mauhew•$ Vtt$iOO emph2si't.n the innot;enOe of tbe murdertd
righuou.~ t.Q lt ..S0-51)- bur luke docs nor, which sugg~a rh.ar ~laca1os was not presenr
in Q. t3peci.alty sinoe Luke has no ~version tO the U$! of the adiecti"e in S\ICh conteXt$ (tee
Lk. 23.<7: Am 3.1<-IS; 1.S2).
116 Post·Mortem Vindication of )ems in the Sayings Gospel Q
salvation of j erusalem." Sometimes refer~nce is made to 1 Enoch 62: in the

judgment, the wicked recognize the Chosen One (vv. 3·SI and then bless and
worship 'that Son of man', begging for mercy (vv. 6, 9}, bur are punished by
angels, becoming 'a s pccta.de for the righteous and for his chosen ones' (V'.
12)." However, the acc lamation's positive tone suggests Q 13.3Sb does not
refer to Jerusale-m's inevitable oondemnacion at the judgment of the Coming
One, but is designed to elicit repentance, possibly along the lines of the
'conditional prophecy' reAding proposed by van der Kwaak and Allison. As
in other deutcronomistK: materials, the themes of rejettcd prophetic appcotls
and threatened judgment in Q 13.34-35 could invite a positive response of
repentance - a lthough it is also pOS$ible t hat the soying's primary use in Q
was to conso-le the community with the hope chat chose who rejected their
appeals would be dt.alt with severely at the judgment.
Ar. this poin~ some important similarities berween the approach taken in
Q 13.34· 35 and in Luke·ACts are worth noting. Luke multiplies the verbal
parallels bttween the .s tories o £ Elijah's assumption and Jesus' ascension: £or
inseaoce, the use of OIICI~cr~flaYw and •is TOYe>Upavov (2 Kgs 2.1, 9·11; Lk.
24.51; ACt$ 1.2, 11); the emphasis on seeing (2 Kgs 2.10, 12; Acts 1.9·111;
the c.ommand to s it (2 Kgs 2.2.. 4, 6; Lk. 24.49); the subseq uent reception
of Spirit (2 Kgs 2.9, 15; Lk. 24.49; Acts 1.8; 2 .1·4)." Luke's interest, as
suggested in the previous chapter, is in explaining j esus• fu ture role using
the standard association of assumpcion with special eschar-ological function.
The focus is on jesus being taken up as Elijah but the cod result is jesus as
the coming Son of man (Acts 1.11; l.k. 21.271. As noted above, Q 13.35b
uses 'not seeing• language similar to that of r.he Elijah assumption story {2
Kgs 2.31), and elsewhere in Q allusions are made to the Elijah cycle: fo r
inseance, Q 9.59· 60 (a nd possibly [Q 9.61·62)) a lludes to 1 Kgs 19.19·21,
as AHison has observed.100 This nor o nly supportS the present thesis that Q
connected assumption with eschatological function in the case: of jesus (as
did the Elijah tradition with Eli.jah). It also suggests tha[ Luke's asct>nsion
$tOry represents a more developed fo rm of the idea already present in l uke's
source material, but with essentially the same christological p urpose: the
explanation of jesus' future role as the coming Son of man, and possibly of
his exaltation in the meantime.
9?, So Manson. &Jyings, p.l28; Stec.k, lsr~H!I, p. 237~ Hoffmann. Studkn, p. 1? 8;

Scbulz, SpruchqN4lle, pp. 3S8-59 ($ucnuously); Po1:ag, ClrtisUJlogie, p. 94; C arland,
Lnunti<J,., p. 201 (in Matthew, at lc:ut}; Zeller, '&trUckung". p • .S17.
98. ~e. for instance, Moffinann. Studim, pp. 177- 78; ZdJer ~feu to r En. 48.5,
where however it is thr Lord of the Spirits (and ooc the Elm One/Soo of man) who is
blessed and pr:ai!IC!d by all human beings ('EnuUckung', p. 517).
99. Zwicp, Asunsio.n, pp. 80-83, 116, ~nd 'Auurnptui t$1', pp. 344, 348; 5« ~bo
j.S. Croatto, 'J e.~ Prophet ljke Ellj.:.h, ~.1'1d Prophet· Teacher like Mosa in Lukc·Acu',}Bt
124 (2005), pp. 451..;;5 (456-58).
100. Alliwo, l"l¢b twJI Jt:SU$, pp. 142-45.
The Death and Assumption of Jesus in Q 13.34-JS I 17
4. implications
At this point $O!lle lmplic;ations of seeing assumption language and associ.ate.d

ideas in Q 13.35b can be given. First, conc~rning the mucture of Q 13.34-
.35 as a whole: v. 34 cefcn obliquely co the rejection of jesus in Jerus.alem,
and v. 3Sa refers to the consequent abandonment of the 'house, signifying
the withdrawal of Wisdom and of divine protection; but v. 3Sb refers to the
assumption of jesus as che means of his vindicarion and installation to his
t:schatologieal role as the Coming One, hinting a t the pos-sible restoration
of Jerusalem (Israel). If the acclamation of blessing is correctly read along
these lines, the overall deuteronom.isric framework or the saying is clarified.
Now, in Zeller's view the anumprion o f jesus, as an escape from death
and preservation from harm, counterbalances tbe deutcronomistic ideas of
prophecic murder and the final destruction of Jerusalem present in Q 13.34~
35::~.. 10' Howe..·er, if the reference to rhe Coming One is not understood as
a prediction of U11qualified condemnation for Jerusalem, the saying also
fits very well within Stock's seven-part struc:ture for the deuteronomistic
'Pro phetcnauss.age':
A. The whole history of Israel is dcpieud as one of persistent disobe-

dience.
B. Therd o re, God makes repeated appeals to Isra el, through the
prophets, in order ro bring them to repentance.
C. These appeals: are mer with persistent rejection, usl.latly meaning the
persecution or death of the prophets.
D. Ther<fore, Cod has punished or will punish Israel.
E. Now a new call for repentance is being offered.
Fl . A final restoration is expected for Israel.
F2. The enemies of Israel and the unfaithful will be judged. 101
ln Steck's view, elements A, B, and C come together in 13.34, the impre-

cation.10l The speaker's desire to gacher Jerusalem~ children means there was
once a c"ll for repen r~nce and restoration (Fl). ' 04 ln the prophetic threat (v.
35a), the speaker predicrs t he abaodonmem of jerusalem and the imminent
destruction of the ciry. But Steck thought neither element D nor E appear
here: there is no reco11ecrion of God's past efforts ro correct his peop1e,
nor any present call for repentance:. l_nstead.. vcr$C: 35 :tS a whole expresses
element F2, the definitive and final judgment of Israel. 10'
l01. ZeiJer. 'EotrU<:kung'. p. 518.

102. In Stoc-k's vitw, it~ms A ro D are the basic d ements i.n rhe deuteronomistK
taditjon. and this. rcprc:sents a IO'ter txpan<kd form. See Steck, lsra.f:l, pp. 6()-64, 77- 80.
122-2-4. Set also Klopptnborg. Formasion, p. 10.5; Jacobson, Fit'51 CoSJUI. p. 73.
103. Stedt,.br«I, pp. 232..33.
104. St«k, Jsr.ul, p. 233.
10$. Steclt, l.n.ul, pp. 23$ ..36.
However, on the reading o( Q 13.34·35 argued herein. there is a greater

conformity to the dc:uteronomjsrjc framework, as Table 4.3 shows.
Table 4.3; The Deuteronomistic Structure of Q 13.34-JS
- ldll:ifti proph.m atad «Ofli"S tm.iswriu

A: dlso'bcdiltf>Or
- •lM)., ofl~ll I w!Ahcd , •• aad y<ll# did e.tll11r111t'
- ~n• pcf ~~~~N-..rl'*

8.: propbcrlo: ~*·'• .. 'MI.,. nh"1l wahr.d'
.,lciJ[i"i ud S!OIIi llg
Cr tri«cnl appuh
- 'fOol dW ilOC wW.'
- •&hold. JMr ho;,tc it klnakcn'

Dt pu»idunmt
- 'Vou w\.ll ne.t We .W•ntll .,,'
E: call fi)J r(l'Cota,....c -l 1r1~ l• rltcc "'''~ clrbeu'flnl hl the Q $it: m 1~..
~. tetlll'n..• •·'") - i.111:plicil in the at'dun•riotr. Wr bck tht:rtofltl rlK:

Pl.: &~l iuJII."'"'*'" uwr11 of1k Coming 011e
Up to E!emenc D~ dlis agrees with Steck~s appraisaL The punishmenc for

Jerusalem's persistent rejection of the appeals of God, both through history
~nd in JC$us, is the abandonment ol the city to destruaion and the diu~
pearance of Jesus from their midst. Yet because verse 3Sb represents a
wholescale reversal of the situation in verses 34 and 35a, as a.rgued above,
the appearance of the Coming One- and the acclamation of blessing - means
both Elements F1 and F2 (restoration and judgment) are implied in the
temporaVc:onditional clause. Ele.ment £, the present call for repentanc~ is
implicit in the fact that the saying is being used in Q (or in the Q preaching),
presumably in order to pro"oke repentance wbile there is sriU time. lOt>
Another implication relates to the chriscology of Q. It was argued above
that Q 13.34~35, with Jesu.s as irs speaker in Q, presents an advanced
Wisdom christology alo ng the same lines as Q 10.21 ·22. The Jerusalem
Lament is also the high point of Q 's deuteronomisric rheology, si.nce it sees
jeruS3Iem~s rejection of jesus as the culminating instance of impenitence,
which results in the abandonment of Jerusalem [ 0 destruction. However., Q
13.35b also uses assumption language and exploits the typical association
between assumption and eschatological function in order to assimilate the
Wisdom chrisrology prominenr in [he Lamenr {and elsewhere in Q) to the
Son of man c:hristology also prominent in Q .
.But does this use of assumption language tell us anything about the origin
of Q's Son of man christology? The 'origin' of Q'.s chrisrology is difficult to
determine especially given the problems that the document's redactionaV
106. Allison also SCC$ aU ~rn:-n of Strc.k's deuteronomistk dements in Q Uesus

'Trdditiott. p. 203 n. 53), and thinks Q coot:tins th~ one d~ute:ronominic ~~~ thai
jacobson !Fim Gos~J, p. 73) thought was lackingt •If Isn.eJ repeo.u, Yllhweh wit! ~tore
~ gatbuing chose teattered among: the nariorlS' (J'RU Tr4dition, p. 203, rtferting tO Q
13.29, 28 and l3.3Sbl.
The Death and Assumption oflosus in Q IJ.J..JS 119
compositional hinory posco. At the least, lh< way that assumption language
appears to function in r<lation to both )<SU$' post·montm vindication and
his es<:harological role meant the ab,.,nce of raurrection laoguage applied
to jesus in Q is of great significan,.,_ 'Easter' pn u (if that be ~ken ro mean
a.n originaung tXpc'ri~ncc or expre5$(on of resutucrion rheology) c;a.noor
be rcprdtd as rhc formative duistological moment for Q.'M'Assumption'
seems to be a more appropriate tbtoJogical category from which ro con.sider
the development of Q's Son of man christoiOSY than rc>urr«:tion (tholl8h the
signi6cance of that insight must still be exploted). The next chapter will show
rhar other Q sayings and compositional srrattgies can be explaintd in light
of the 'assumprion theology' of Q 13.34-35, strengthening this possibiUry.
Yer certainty is ultimately impossible, for it was seen in the previou1 chapter
how some sources apparently could speak secondarily about the assumption
of figurts who on other grounds were beJieved ro have a special heavenly or
t'KharologicaJstatus.; the same kind of deveJopment cannot be ruled out for
Q. In other words, assumption languagt in Q 13.3Sb could be lor Q only a
way of accounting for a prior belief in jesus as the comins Son of man.
The ~adiog of Q 13.34-35 ptopostd hen! indl<oatC$ the level of theological
creativity rht Q redactor was engaged in. The rejection of john and jesus
(and of the community's proclamation) wu interpteted theologically by
means of rhe deutt<ooomistic tr.~dition (Q 6.23c; 7.31·35; 11.49-S I; 13.34-
JS), and the prophetic pow« of Q'• repentance preaching was heightened.
Working in anorhcr direction, Q also elevated jesus· Jttrus &om th-ar of
Wisdom's emissary to tht point whe"' ht speaks, as(or on behalf of) Sophia,
as the med13ror of revelation {Q 10.21-22) and as rht origin of prophetic
•ppeals (13.34-35). Finally, Q forged a correlation between th<communiry's
soreriolosical hope in jesus' words and deeds as the locus of the kingdom {Q
6.46·49; 11 .20) and their eschatological hope in his return •• rhe Coming
One (Q 3.16· 17; 13.34-35) who would, as the Son of man, execute judgment
on the basis of faithful allegiance to j esus (Q 12.8·10; 12.39·40; 12.42-46).
All these chriotological stcc;ams converge in Q 1J.H-35: the rejected and
crucified jesus is vind.icated by assumpcion as a sign of divine Cavour, and
Wisdom•a de:p:anure is reconfigured as the removal, and pre:serva.rion for a
future rolt, of jesus the Coming One.
On th• Origin and D.udt>p,..,.t of Q I 3.34-JS
Scholan such as 8ult:mann (relying on his pt<dtcC$SOr$) and St«:k, as aotcd

above, sought ro link Q 13.34-35 with Q 11.49-S 1 in a pr.-Q, jewish Sit<
as • pair of judgment sayings drawn from an apocryphol wisdom soun:c, but
rhe foregoing lnterprer:ation of Q 13.34 35 in vires che conclusion thar it is a
4
Q <:om position. ~to scnin& the uttt:ranct about jerusalem•• forsaken house
(v. 3Sa) probably re6ecrs a setting when the removal o( divine protection
120 l'ost-MOTI<m VindiCtJtion of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
seemed likel)'. rather chan one after the Temple's destruction in 70 CE. As
Kloppenborg points our, this condusion could have bc:cn drawn i.n peacetime
gi·ven knowledge of the practice of evocatio deorum. 108 On the other hand,
v. 35b c:ould reflect a setting in which it s till seemed that the dest.rucrion
of j erusalem couJd be otvoidcd, i( resx:ntancc prec«ied the Coming One.
This is because. the Psalm 118 citation at least holds ouc the possibility of a
positive outcome fo r jerusalem ('until you say ... •). 1fW Thus it seems unlikely
th<Jt hostilities had progressed t () the point where the salvation of Jerusalem
would seem impossible. If v. 35b is a redactional addition to the saying, its
perspective does nor seem to require a s ubstantially different Setting than
v, JSa. On the other hand, Q 13.34-3Sa as a deuteronomistic unerance of
judgment make!O sense as a unit o n its own. Thu~ lt &eems best to conclude
that v. 3Sb was added redacrionally to that complex, reversing the situation
in vv. 34-3 5a on two counts Uesus rejected and vindicattdt jerusa lem
abandoned and invited to escape judgment), and 6Jiing out more completely
the franltwork of the deureronomistic statements about the prophetS.
Yet the apostrophe to jerusalem reflects a compositional interest in the
S"ptei6c (:asto of jesus, and a focus on themes and allusions drawn froro the
one text where Jerusalem is singled out - 2 Chron. 24.l7·24. 110 This text has,
as Robinson noted? numerous other points of cont;Jct with Q 13.34-35. But
as not.cd above, a deuteronomistic interpretation of hjsrory is not the only
possible grounds for concluding that the temple was abandoned, so it cannot
be ruled out that v. 3Sa circulated separately from v. 34, which then could
be viewed as a secondary deureronomistic rationa lization. Regardless, a Q
composition for the saying is likely, with its completed form {1) expressing
a belief in jesus? post-mortem vindic:atioo a.s the reversal o( his cejection by
jerusalem, but also (2) announcing judgment at his return as Coming One
on those who reje.cre-d him, and {3) inviting a respOnse of repentance in view
of the hastening end. 111
108. Kloppe11borg. 'Dare of Mark', p. 442. Ttferrlng to Q J3.3Sa :tnd ]es,w ben
l'lananiah Uoscphus, Wor 6.300..09t.
109. Q J3.34 3S is a decisive text IOf the:". dating o-f Q, but the: conditions that fbi:_
4
Jenu:akm Ummt s:u.ggescs are not :ag:retd upon. See Fl.edderm2nn, Ruonstnution and
Comm4tntary, pp. 1$7-59, 70$-Q7 (dating Q tO 'around 1S a', and tak(og: Q 13 ..34~35
as a r«<actioiUJ <nation c:mph-asil.ing not tbt temple"i destruction but the delay of t~
pa.rot.LSi~); MyUyko11ki, '5«131 History', pp. 19g....99 idatiog Q 13.3-i.J$ to arOund ?$h
Hoftm:~.nn, 'Redaction of Q', p. 19 I (durin& or towards rbe end o f the first Revolt); ZcUtt,
'Zuku.nft tsrads', p-p. JS8-$9 (the beginning of che War); Tuckett, Q ond th~ HisWry, p-.
362 ('some time before the Jewish rt"voft'1; Klop-penborg, ExC4wting Q, pp. 80-87, and
'Jnte of Mark', pp. 442, 450 (during Q's s«<nd red2etio~ late 50s or t.arly 60$).
no. 'And wntb QQ)(! upoo Judah and jerusakm for thj, gui.h of theirs' (2 Olron.
24.18); •The, ltbe army o{ Atam} came to Judah :and Jerus:~.l(m~ Jind ddtrOYtd all the
of&;:iab ol the people !rom amoog them ... '(v. 23).
11 t . Fleddernunn, who thinb the whole 11ayi~ is the ¢0(11.pQ$itlon of Q'.$ author.
ootes how the tenses in the three paru Wllold (J1$St - repeated rejc~:cion of jes\1$' ministry;
pr~m - .abandonment ol the: b~; futu~ - paroua:ia of the Son of man•. Fleddermann.
Rucnstnu:tion 4nd Comtnmt4ry• pp. 706-07.
1"he Duth and Assumption o{Jesus in Q 13.34-35 121
E.x<ursus: 1"ht Assumption ofJesus and Body-Soul Dualism in Q
Q 12.4-S assumes a typicilly Helknimc body.soulonthtopology, advocating

the feat not of those: who ue able only to kill the body alone, but of God
who is able to d<1troy both soul and body in C. henna."' Hete death is
understood as a sepantion of body and soul~ since an ongoing life: for the
soul after rht death of the body ls presumed. In some of the •ourccs investi·
gated above, problem$ aTQSc wben death. viewed in rhis way, was followed
(or accompanied) by the disappearance of the corpse. As ucn in the previous
chaplet, Antoninus Liberalis uotmally described the body of the memmor·
phosed person as experiencing a transformation, even after death, while the
soul would s urvive to a diffecent fate. Both Philo and Ovid could talk of the
dissolution o( the physical body, thus rct<1ining tht' disappearance aspect of
assumption longuage while avoiding saying that tht body it immortalized .
Similatly, bmh the aseenr of MS<y's soul at her deorh and the s ub.«quent
assumprion of her body were desc-ribed in ctnain narrarivc sour~:-es of the
Dormition.
Such difficulties are not encountered in sourct:s that us:e assumption
l:tnguage a s a c::irc:umloe:ution for e-arly death, because assumption in
thC* case-.s w~s not understood 'realistically" as the removal of the body.
The Graeco--Romao con.solarioo m:uerials, for instance, were abl~ to u.k
asJumpcion language almost euphemistically for early death; tht uaditional
connection of Aj•umprion with dil,;nc agency allowed the grieving co uw such
language in order to blame the dt":iry or entity thought rapons1ble. The u.se
of auumption language in Wi$. 4. J0.11 must c·a ke inco account Wisdom's
emphasis on the immoruliry of the soul (3.1-4), as well as the dishonoutable
r••• of rhe corpod of 'rhe ungodly' (4.19): rhe posr· morrem cncounlet in
Wisdom S cg nnot be 'hodiJy•, despite che ;standing• lnnguage in Wis. S.l
o
(Ton oniana1 i v nopp~al<;< rro~~li 61•cx•os). So because Wi•dom alludes
to t he nssumpdon of the 'righteous one' using •ta king• language rather than
•disappenrancc' language, early death here is equared wirh rhc divine bless-ing
of assumption, taken 'euphemistically'.
So, what undct1tanding o( jesus• assumption lies beneath the language
of Q 13.3Sb? Q does not narrativiz.e <he appliea<ion of this idiom ro jesus.;
rhe m0$1 imporranr aspeas of assWDption fot Q 13.3~·3S are those spelled
out above- divine favour, heavenly exaltation, and ~h:nological function
- and rhe fare of the body of jesus is beside rhe point. Thi• could put Q'•
uJe of assumption language somewhere in the neighboutbood of Wisdom
2-S. Howevu, in conw.ast with Was. ~.10.11, Q 13.3Sb uses "disappearance'
J 11. FOC" rcCONtn.le'hon. see Robi~ et at... Critiul Edilioft, pp. 29-6-99. Matthew's
wordina. which t looe retain$ rh.e ~fer~ roW soul (Mt.. IO.l.S), is &trwralty acnpttd
u ...lli..l •o Q: Schuh., SprK<hqH<Ile, pp. 157-58; Pipe~ ww-. pp. sz-sJ and 221 IL
209; Tudtdl, Q 11M the Hi#()ry. p. 31.S; Fkddef'ft\ann, R.t-W"'Irtu:tlo,. ~~nJ Com~t.r.ry,
p. 569.
language, which suggests more than a euphemistic meaning. lf Q's under-

standing of the assumption of Jesus was nor euphemistic, there is no reason
to think that it would have sought to account for rhe fate of Jesus' soul at the
point of death. Other writings examined in the previous chapter St"emed able
to aiJow death and assumption to coexist without questioning the anchropo-
Jogical details (for instance, Chariton, Chaer. 3.3; Plurarc,h, Rom. 28.6 and
Ant. Lib., Metam. 33.3-4; T. Job 39.8-40.3; Prot. }as. 24.9). lt seems best
to conjecture that Q would have thought of jesu-s ' post-mortem assumption
in a similar way, thinking re.alisrically of a millennium-old religious motif
without letting current anthropology get in the way.
Chapter 5
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF ASSUMYTION IN

Q 13.34-35 FOR OTHER Q MATERIAI..S
The-contenlion that Q 13.35 alludes tO the a.s sumption of jesus has broader
implicarioos- for the study of Q, which this chapter will examine: first, Q
materials describing an absent and rerurning master, or an invisible and
s uddenly appearing Son of man, can be understood in relation to Q 13.34-
35; second, the expe-ctation of corporate vindication in Q can be relate~
albeit tangentially, to its- 'assumption' christology; third, the ~sign of Jonah'
saying (Q 11.29-30) could, according ro Zeller, be clari6ed with reference t<>
the connection berween jesus' disappearance and his eschatologicaJ role-. 1
Absence, Invisibility, and Return in Q
Jn John Dominic Crossan•s opinion, Mark created the Empty Tomb $tory
(Mk 16.1-8) as an 'an6-tradition' in opposition to the 'Apparicion ttadition'
(deployed as a cred:al state.ment in 1 Cor. 15.3·7, and in nanativc for m
elsewhere). For Mk 16.1·8, the emphasis is on the 'absent Lord': 4 0R earth
therto are no apparitions but only the harsh negative of the Lempty tombj
and the Lord wbo "is nor her."'.' Regarding Q 13.35, Uro has argued that
•jesus' withdrawal may represt:nt a s imilar "absent Jes:us• theology as that
found in che Empty Tomb story known w Mark. ' 3 This raises the possibility
of a comparison between Q and Mark 16.1 ·8, which is undertaken in the
following chapter. But there are sayings in Q whkh s-uggest an absent roaste~
or an unseen or absent Son of man, and these may be interpreted in light of
the disappearance language in Q 13.35b. In Q, J esus' assumption-related
absence is less the •harsh negative' that Crossan saw in Ma rk, a nd more a
I. Z<lle~ 'E.ntrilclumg', pp. 519-27.

Z. JD. C""'an, 'Empey Tomb and Abs<nt Lonl CMuk 16,1-8)', in W.H. Kelbe• (ed.),
Tin Pauiots itt MarJe: Snulies 011 Mark 14--16 (Philacklphia: Fomcsa., U76~ pp. 135-52
(1,12).
3. Uro, 'Jtesu,s.oliikc ja yJOmousemw', p. t t l. In this essay, Uro suggests Q 13.3.Sb
cxprmtt tomethitlg IJke the withdrawal o£ Wi~otn, bU1 in a l•ttr etAr be aUow$ that it
expresses asnunptioo as 'enJtarion' ('Apocalyptic Symbolism', p. Ill n. t27t.
124 Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in lh• Sayings G"'pel Q
necessary implication of j esus' post-mortem presence elsewhere until his

..chatOiogical role. The Q materials that display themes like ab.en<e or in vis·
ibiliry have to do with t he time before the Son of maa•s coming.
Q 13.35b, a$ an assumpcion pred icdon, s uggests a scenario of disap--
pearance-abscnce-recurn: •t cell you, you will not see me until (the time]
comes when you say, "'Blessed is the Coming One in the name o( tbc Lord!"''
Two sets of sayings in Qdescribe rhe return of an absent master (Q 12.4 2-46
and Q 19 . ll-13, 15·24, 26) or the invisibility and sudden appearance of the
S<Jn of mon (Q 12.39-40, (Q 17.22), and Q 17.23-24); these can be read in
light of the assumprion-o.bsence-parousia schema suggested by Q 13.35b. If
such a reading sec:ms warranted, these texts may be considered circumstantial
evidence for the imponance of ~assumption' in Q.
1. The Absent and R~t.urning Master
Two Q parables use the imagery of an absc:nt and returning master: ' f"a.ithful
and Unfaithful Slaves' (Q 12.42·46), and 'The Entrusted Money' (Q 19.12·
13, 15·24, 26). Aside from differences between Lk. 12.42 and Mt. 24.45,'
the fo rmer pa rab(e•s reconstruction is not problem~6c. On the other hand,
'the substantial disagreements between Matthew and Luke {in Q 19!, as
wtll as- tht somewhat differ~ut narrative line.s, account for s erious source:
critical disputes'.' Because of these difficulties, Q 12.42-46 will be t he mote
important text to be examined here. That said, Matthew and Luke do nor
disagree substantiaUy about the master's deparcure and return in Q 19,
despite the different vocabulary used, so that it c;ao be s.afcly concluded that
Q contained a parable about an absent and returning master betwetn Q
17.34·35 a nd Q22.28, 30; hut the examination of this parable will b< limited
herein to more general observations and to comcxtual considerations.
In Q 12.42-·46~ there is no direct reftrtnce t<) the departure of the master
{0 r:Up105),' but his absence is clear, for be appoints beforehand one of his
slaves co feed the household in a timely fashion {12.42); besides, the master's
coming (12.43, .(5, 46) must mc:an he has been away. During this a~encc,
the appointed slave•s behaviour is the focus: either it will establish h im as
blessed (~aKapu>s-, v. 43) and deserving greater respOnsibility (v. 44), or it
wiU prove him faithless {TO uEpos oUT<N IJiTO T00v CtntOTooY) and deserving
a gruesome punishm~nt (cStXOTo~r)otl o:UTOu, v. 46). judgment is rendered a t
the master's c:omin.g (vv. 43, 46).
4. See Robinson d ~l. Cri#a~/ E.dili<m, pp. 366-67.

.S. KJoppenborg, Q P"ndlel$. p. 200. Some have doubted its presence: in Q, including
tunuclt, Sdyinxs ofl~us, pp. 122- U ; M2fl1,0Jl, Sayings. p. 24$; P. Vw.ili2dis:, ''The Nawre
and Ex<cnt o£d><Q Document', NovT20 {1978 ~ pp. 49- 73 (69\; Jacobson, First Go.spd,
p.2#.
6. k\ip•os OCI.'Un fol.lt ti.mt$ in th.is pacable.
Sign~na of Assumption in Q IJ.J4.JS L2S
The coming of the master is described in rcrms simil.lr ro thOS< US<d for the
coming of the Son of man or the Coming Ono olsewhero in Q. Q 12.42-46
indudet oohoes of the language uKd in Q lJ.JSb for the poot·uswnprioo
o
rorurn of the Coming One: ip)(Oilal (iAer::.v aip1~ aVroU, v. 43)' and ii<c.>
o
(~II aip1~ loU ao.iAov iuivou, v. 46). An obvious choice foe the maS<er's
o
return would be iPXO\JGI; however, Q lJ.JSb uses ipx(>IJl~ for Jesus who
returns after an absence that begins with assumption, and in the prectding
pericope (Q 12.39 -~01, the coming of the Son of man is compared to the
c·oming of a rbic£ (0 KAirr1ll5lpxncll, v, 39; 0 uiOs ToU 0\IGpWnou ip,XtTOI,
v. 40). If Q 12.42-'16 functions as an inl<rpretotive addition to 12.39-~0,
the master in rhe parable should be identified with the Son of man of v. 40.1
If this is correct, h may be pointed our rhat, on Kloppenburg's con.u rual
of the composition of Q at least, this parable abour Rn absent master was
composed as part of the same redactional stratum as Q 13.34·35.' The verb
ii<c.> also appears hot< IQ 12.461. It is nor used frequently in Q, bu1 it refrrs
to the eschatological future equ•lly in Q 12.46 as in irs other two uses in Q
(Q 13.29; 13.JSb). 1° For the preceding context IQ 12.39-40) refers ro the
unexpected ooming of the Son of mao. 11 Funbermore, within cbe oonlines of
tM parable it><lf, the coming of the mast<!' ropeesonts both judgm<nt and the
dispcnsarion o( reward or punisb.meor appropriuc ro rhc slave's behaviour
(12.43, 46). The nchatologicalsignificance of tho parable is clear from its
contents aJ well :U its context. u
'The EnuuSied Money' (Q 19.12·13, 15·24, 26) deals with similar
rhemes. Although the differences here between Matthew and Lulc.e mako a
detailed study of thi• parable in Q impo55ible," a few o btervations may be
mn.de. A ocrtllln person, called ' Masrer'lacer in the parable by theslnves (Q
19.16, 18, 20; also v, 15), goes away on a journey," and calling his slaves
enttusu money 10 them (19.12·131. After a prolonged absence- which is
nor as decisive an issue as in Q 12.42·46 - he: rerurns and sttdes accounts
7. U.. 12.4.5 addt tht c:ocnp~ry i:olin.itive tO clarify that ic iJ lhe maatr"s com.inQ
which it dtiay<d; JCPO"~o 0 .,;p,;,. """ip)(<06oo (Lit. 12.<1$; ef. Mt. 24.48 vJ.f.
8. See IOoppcnbo'llo '-"""' aod !be !'arable. ol-"""' in Q', in R. l'iper (td.J, Tb<
Cotpd &hi...J the C..P<Is: Cmrmt SnJi<s"" Q (NoiTSup, 15; l.ddm; IJnll, '"S ~ pp.
275-JI, 1~).,4).
9. Kloppmbofa. ,___, pp.IS~Sl , 229. Aliton, l•zmmwl }.-.. pp. 87-92.
- th>l Q 12,42-46 dtpeods upon do< uo<y ofj01<plo in c.-;, J,.
10. R~ et al, Cntkli Editioe, p. 422, aso;.,..{(j\tu on Uco Qat a tCI ln-d of
c:uaincy.
11. )(~borg. Fo.M.t;o, p. 150.
11. According to Uro, 'Apoc:alrptic: Symbolla.m', p. 94, lhis intcrpreutioa is
'ioaca pablc•.
ll. Set R.obirllloo ct al~ Critic41 £ditioll, pp. .52~57; d . FlcddcrmaM, lt~«HVtntaior.
•"" eom........,. PP· 8l7-6J.
1-4, See Robinson ct al., c;,;tia;d Etlititm, p. 524, opc:ing (or the wordins o( Mt.
2..S. I<41,
126 Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in tht Sayings Gospel Q
with the:m (19.1S).u As the accounts are serded, the s laves are either
rewarde<l (19.17, 19) or castigated (19.22-24) for bow they boodled the
responsibility.
As with Q 12.42-46, the context clarifies the eschatological significance
of me parable. The Q 19 parable comes between the mate<ial in Q 17 about
the coming of the Son of man and the promise in Q 22.28, 30 that jesus'
followers would be assigned the rask of 'judging the twelve tribe$'. The
material in Q 17 on the day of the Son of man, which will be discussed in
50mcwhar more detail below, has in view a sudden appearance of the Son of
man aher a rime of invisibility or absence (Q 17.23·24, 37b, 26-30, 34-35).
The coming of the Son of man is a time of 'eschacologicol separation' (17 .34-
35)~ 1' just as the coming of the mamr in 'The Entrusted Money• is the: time:
for settling aocounts and dispensing reward or chastisement ro either the
good or the wicked slave.s (Q 19.17, 19?, 22). Alrhough Luke and Matthew
disogree (Mr. 24.21, 23; Lk. 19.17, 19) on rhe precise rewards given in the
parable, the principle is the same as in Q 12.44. The following pericope (Q
22.28, 30) adds further escbacological weigbr ro the reward theme in Q 19."
As in Q 12.42·46, in this parable is also e.voked the absence and rerum - in
orde-r to dispense judgment, reward, and punishment - of the Son of man.
2. The Suddenly Appearing Son of Man
Q 12.39-40 likens the coming of the Son of mon to the arrival of a thief to
break into a house. As Heinz Sc:hi.irmann noted, 'the discrepancy between
the metaphor, whic.h portrays a calamitous event, and its application to
the coming Son of man probably pOints tO a .sec:ondary expansion'." It is
also likely, as Schiirmann suggested, that 'the composirion in Q 12.35-40
continued to grow secondarily' through the addition of 12.42-46. " As
argued above, this puts 12.42.. 46 in the same compositional stratum as Q
13.34-35, which predi<.~s the absence and return of j esus.
The r<daction of Q 12.39-40 probably happened along these lines, but
there is still a way to read this unit so that v. 40 g.ive1 a reasonable inter-
pretadon of v. 39. Q 12.39 states that one way to prevent an unforeseeable
break-in is to know the rime at which the robber will come. Implied here, is
a second way to prevent a robbery: not to leave the ho11se unguarded (12.39)
15. Set Robinson tt :al., Critical &iition, p. .5.32, opting for th~ wording of Mt.
2.1.19.
16. Kloppcnborg, Fot"11f41K.m_, p. 163 (with literature, n. 2?4).
17. Stt Kir~ Composilicm, pp. 297- 98.
18. SchUrmann. •Son of Mao Tide', pp. 87-88. KJoppenborg, ~ion. p. 149,
thinks the two patt:S of dtis saying compkx are inc{)ruistent in logic: the parabt~ advoc:aoes
watcMUloCS$ to pcevt:nt a theft, while: 1be interpretation suggest$ that the comi~ of the Soc
o-f man can be ndtbtr fores«n nor prevmtt'd. Cf. Schulz. Sprt~dtquelk, p. 268; liib.tmann,
R<dakt;,.., p. 70.
19. Sclliirmann, 'Son of Man Trtle', p. 88.
Signi(iC<Jnu of Assumption in Q 13.34-3.5 127
-that is, to stay at home and stay watchful at aU times. Knowing the time
of when a thief will c:ome is impossible. The interpretation of the parable
(12.40) seizes upon this, a nd warns the~t because the time of the Son of ma.n's
coming is unknowable, those expecting his coming ,hould be ready (i"To•uo•)
always. This also has impli""tions for the following parable (12.42-46): the
choice is between being faithful a lways (that is, ready to be (found so doing'),
or being unfaithlul (and caught unawares}. The wicked s la"c's undoi_ n g was
his presumption about t he riming of the master's return. Had h.c known when
the master would return, he would not have begun his misbehaviour (12.45),
or would have rjmcd it more appropriately. The admonitory point of boc:h
12.39-40 and 12.42-46 is, 'Be: ready always for the unknowable <ime of rhe
Son of man's coming. •
The absence of the Son of man is clearer in Lk. 17.22, a text sometimes
assigned to Q. Alliwn thinks the invisibility of the speaker in Q 13.35b
'recalls Q 17.22, according to which people will long to see one of the days
of the Son of man but will not see it. In both places the present is marked by
the Son of man's abience'.20 The language is certainly -~imilu: oV ll~ i6rrri
u• (Q 13 .35b); im9vu~O£Tt ... iOiiv Kai w•
¥all• (Lk. 17.22). Both ref<r
to the pre· parousia absence of the Coming O ne/Son of man, and both use
the '"not-seeing' language typical of ass-u mption reports, but the grounds for
ass1gning this ro Q are insuJ6cient. 21 On the other hand, the idea of absence
or invisibility is present also in Q material which follows in Luke (Q 17.23-
24 ); perhap< this prompted Luke to make the addition here.
Q 17.23-24 warns against following false announcementli of the coming
of the Son of man. In contrast with Q 12.39-40, which su<sses that the
Son of man's coming will be unforeseeable, these verses stnss its sudden
and public nature. Originally, vv. 23 and 24 probably did not belong
together, for the former refers to the problem o f mcS$ianic pretcndeN and
rhe latter to the problem of eschatological speculation concerning tbe Son
of man.22 K.loppe:nborg suggests t h .t the s.ayin.g.~· placement together ~esulrs
in $0mething like, ttlo not attend to earthly messianic 6gures; the Son o£
man wiU come as a heavenly figure!'» However, as they stand together now
in Q (yap, 17.24), the <!feet is that those wbo say 'Bc:bold' claim to have
knowledge of the location of the Son of man (iOoU Ev T\l iprllJ~ ioTfv, ...
iOOU iv Toi's Ta~&:io15, 17.23).1" Those making such pronouncements will be
20. Allison,)UNt Trt~diricm, p. 203.

21. KJoppmborg arguc9 dlat 'lingui.stic: fearurts., as ~II as the prnence o f the Lucm
agenda of explaining r~r the contemporaries of]e$US will not witnm tht P;uousia., identify
l.u.ke 17:22 as~ Lucan *ddition• (Formation, p. ISS I. Stt also SchuJz., Spruchqfl4llk, p. 278
n. 90; Robitl$01'1 et al., Criric.tJI f.dlr ~. pp. 5()()-01. AJiisC)Il ~ves no e-,rplan.:.tion for h.is
induston of Lie. 1?.12 in Q C}esfl.S T"uUr.io'fl, p-. 203); ~ od Uro think.$ Lk. 1?.22 'f.:()u)d be .a
rcminiKencc o( Q tJ.l$' (•Apoc2lypt;c- Symbolism•. p. 97 n. 33).
22. Kloppenbo<g, Fom..Jioft, pp. JS~-'0.
n. Klopp<nborg, Porm4tm, p. 161.
24. ReOOR$1n.u:tiOn frocn Robiruon et ilL, Critie4l Edition, pp. 502~3.
128 Post-Mort= Vindicalion of jesus in the Sayings Gosptl Q
mistaken, fo r t he Son of man's coming wilt not take place imperceptibly: it

will happen 'as the lighming stteaks from the east and fbshes as far as the
west' (17.24)." And following after such pronouncements will be fruitless:
the Son of man will nor be there; he will still be absent. Those who know
how t he Son o f man will appear will not be misled. Uro is corn:ct that 'Q
17.23 reflects the idea of the absence of jesus', rather than the idea of false
prophets."
'Spatial rather than temporal language~ dominates the desc:r1prjon of the
coming of the Son of man in Q 17.23-24. 21 Q 17.37 ('Wherever the corpse
is, there the vultures will gather'), which probably originally followed 17.23-
24, also describes a visible.sjgn of the Son of man's coming.z. A shih in focus
occurs at this point in Q 17, 'from geographical to temporal concerns•.J:i
Thus the Noah saying (17.26-27) and the Lot saying (vv. 28-29)30 emphasize
the sudden imrusion of the Son of mao•s coming imo everyday life. But
the spatia' aspecu of these depictions of the coming of the Son of man are
important here, because they require that onetime absence becomes presence,
unexpectedly and undeniably. In Uro's words, 'It is obvious that both 13.35b
and 17.23ff express the same conviction of the author. jesus remains unseen
until the day of his publk manifestation. ' 3 1 This theme is also present in Q
12.2-3, which looks ahead to a future time of revelation and knowledge of
hidden rhings (arroKa>.vct9JiOtTal, yvc.>o&!iotTal), though the focus there is
more on the coming judgment than the coming of the Son of man.12 ln Q
17.23·24, the juxtaposition of the warnings against foUowing tbose who i2)'
'Behold!' (v. 23) with the imagery of lightning (v. 24) emphasizes the public
manifestation of the Son of man. This is how the end of Jesus' a bsenc-e was
imagined, as the acclamation of the Coming One in t3.35b suggests. Uro
"25. Sdtui1.. Spruehq•4tll4, p. 28Jo Pipet. WisdOm, p. 141.

26. Uro, •ApocalyptlC Symboli..w:n•, p. 114 n. 13<1.
17. Uro, • Ap<.~C~lyptic Symbolism'. p. 114.
28. So Robinson t"t at. Critical Edition, pp. 508-13; forliterarure, see l(loppenborg,
Q Pa<allris, p. 194.
29. So ·rucken, Q t~nd the History, p. 159; S« also Du:bpole, Quest. p. 254; Pi~
Wi$d()m, p. 141 ; Uro. ·A~I ypc i¢ SymboBsm', p. 11<1.
30. This could bt Q material: S« Klop()<!nborg. Q Parallels, pp. 192-94; Catchpol~
Que#, p. 248; Tuelcett, Q and the Hiuory, p. 1$9; the JQP was undecided (Robinsoo ec
aL, Critial Edition, pp. .516-tn Uihnnann showed that refcrc:nces to Noah and Lor often
came together in ann()W'Ic;ement$ of judgment (RedaA:tio,, pp. ?$..83}, and Klopproborg
points out that because lukc:'s redactional themes appear in vv. 31·32, and nor vv. 28·29,
t here probably Wall •a reference 10 Ge~" 19 in his 3Qu((e' ( Kioppenbo~:"g. Formati(}n, p.
1S7). 5« also Allison, lmm~:ctwl )•sus, pp. 9.5- 98.
l l. Uro, 'Apoc:aJypticSymboliw•, p. 115.
32. Robiruon ~c at.. Critical E.dUK:m, 290-91. For tbc5e sayings as Looking ahead
ro tbc 6nal judgment, see S. McKnight, 'Public Dttlaration or Fin31 judgment? Matthew
H):26-27 •luke 12:2·3 as a Cue of Creative Redacti<m', in B.. Cb.ilc.on aDd C. Evam (ed.s.),
Authe.ntkating the Words ofJesus (N1TS, 181l; l.cjdm: BriO, 1999), pp. 363-83 C372-n;
rocoM~rucrioo., 377).
Significance of Asswnption in Q 13.34-35 129
conjectures (hesitantly) on the grounds of these thematic similarities rhat

Q 13.34·35 may have originaUy served as the introduction to the Q 17
material. JJ David Catchpole reconstructs the order of Q along similar l.ines.J4
Thematic proximjty need not require contextual proxitniry, however.
J. Implications
To sum up: there are similarities of language (ipxo~ot , t)Kc.>} and motif
(disappearance/deparrure - invisibility/absence - appearance/presence)
between Q 13.35b and other Q material concerning an absent then suddenly
returning master or Son of man. In orher early Cbri$tian texts, the idea of
the absence then •udden appearance or return of jesu• may be found. For
instance, 1 The.•. 1.10 speaks of waiting for the L<>rd Jesus (to appear) from
heaven, presuming a scenario of resurrec:rion (0v ~yttp~v iK [rWv] vtkpWv}
followed by heavenly enthronement or exaltation (EKTi:Jv oUpaw:lv) before
his return. As seen above, something similar is going on in Luke-Acts, which
also includes the additional step of ;15eension (assumption), if not to account
for the exaltation of the risen jesus, at least to express in 'tradidonal' terms
how he was going tO return {Act$1.11}. Howe ..·er, as shown above-, a scenario
of resurrection~xaltarion""1>3rousia is not found in Q.
The expression "Son of rnan' in Q is consiste-ntly a wa.y of referring to
jesus, so that even those mate-rials which refer to a coming Son of ma.o have
jesus in view, though apan from his eanh1y career. The Q materials juS[
examined relate the coming of the Son of man after a time of absence to
pacabolic materials about an absent master who returns tO judge rhe conduct
of his slaves. These materials focus on absence and re-turn, owing to parabolic
constraints and paraenc:tic concerns, so that the way the mas-ter becomes
absent is nor of direct concern: he simply is not there (Q 12.42), with a slave
appointed in his absence, or is away on a trip (Q 19.12). Similarly, the Son
of man is ab>ent befo,. his 'day' (Q 17.23·24, 26, 30; d. 12.46), and the
weight is on the spatial and temporal aspects of his return (Q 12.40; 17.23·
24, 37, 26·27, 30, 34-35). The>< particular textS do not explain how Jesus
the Son of man berom& absent; they begin from the supposition that he is
alnc-nt. Formally? the eschatological sayings provide room fo( expressing how
he becomes absent, although language of •disappearance' or 'invisibility, is
lacking (except for Lk. 17 .22, which probably was nor in Q). Either way a
period of the phy•ical absence of Jesus the Son of man is highlighted.
All this is consistent with the scenario that Q 13.35 depicts, on rhe reading
argued above: jesus will no more be seen until he returns to the acclamation
of 'jcru•alem' in the words of Ps. 118.26. In Q 13.35 the frx:us is on the
33. Uro, 'Apocalyptic Symbolism'. pp. 9·1, 114.

34. C"chpole, Q-«t, p. 2S9, followiog MonN>w'o order' 'Q 11.3?· 52; 13.34·35;
17.22-37; 12.39-,.6•. Similarly, Michael thought Q 13.3Sb originally introduc:cd Q 1?
('Lament o~·cr jerusalem?, pp. 109-121.
130 Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in th• Sayings Gospel Q
di,..ppearance (of Jesus) and return of the Coming One; the Jack of attention
tOthe intervtning time is understandable given the focus on jesus• rtj~tion,
departure, and return in that .say-ing, rather than on the behaviour of his
followers during IUs absence. Thus the sayings jusr exami ned (Q 12.39·40
+ 12.42-46 and Q 17 + Q 19) are also suggestive of 'assumption' as the
christOiogical basis for the expectation that the absent jesus would return as-
the Son of man. This is an important possibility, for it allows that the motif
of 'assumption and return' - which herein has been proposed as the literary
answer offered in Q to rhe problem of the death of Jesus - is present in Q
elsewhere than the Jerusalem Lament, and has left its mark compositionally
on the document.
A Christo/ogi<al Basis {or Cm-porate Vindication in Q
In 1990, Kloppenborg noted that the main themes isolated by Nickelsburg

in his srudy of the •wisdom tale')j - uial, ordeal, condemnation, d ivine
assistance, vindication, exaltation, acclamation, punishment of persecutors
-are aJso found in Q, but deployed not individually in relation to Jesus but
corporarely, 'in relation to the colltctivt e.xperiem:e of the community•.J6
Vmdic4tkm is txpressed u riously: the per$(cuttd are, paradoxicaUy, bks!cd {6:22·

2Jb) and are included in the company of God's prophets (6:23c; 11:o49-S1; 13:34-
JS}. In &pile o( oppo&irion, they $peak wicb the voice of jnus and ulrimatC"Iy, God
(1(}.16), and are the oneo wbo may <!aim knowkdge of God (10:21 ·22). Both the
promise of •reward in he.avcn• (6:12b; d. 6:3Sb) and the promi$e that je$\1$' foUowet$
wiJI&it on th.ronts, judging lmel imply vindication and aalt4ticm (22:28-30; cf.
13:28 29}. Variow aalamdJiQtu a~ prtknt: )e&U$ And john tre idtnti6ed a.s Sophia~
4
~lldrtn (7:35); Jesus• lollowers are set above tbc: sages bttau.sc of theit su~rior
grasp of rew.lation {10:21 22); "and they a.re pronounced mort b1eMtd fban prophets
4
and kinp brcau.st of wb.at they hav~ witnt$SC'd (10:2.3-24).J7
Kloppenborg's point was that although the individual elements of che srory
o( jesus' rejection, death, and vindic3tion 3re present in Q, they come to
ex-pression neither in narratjve fas hion nor individualized w ltb respect ro
Jesus." Kloppenborg did not focus on t he theological (or christological) basis
of the Q communit)•'s hope for vlndkat.ion or reward in heaven, howtver. In
Q the hope of corporate vindication is always predicated upon identi6cation
wlth Jesus . This observation &uggesu that the vindicated and exalted jesus
3$. Niekeb.bufg. R.tsu"~~:lon. lmmort4lity atul Ett:mal Li(r, idem, 'The GmrC'· a.od
Functioo of the Markan Passion Narr.u ive•. HTR 73 {1980), pp. 1$3-84.
36. Xlop-penborg. 'Easter Faith', p . 79 (emphasis original).
37. Kloppmbotg, 'Easter faith', p. 79.
38. Kloppcnborg, 'Ea.srer Fairh'• pp. 81-82. Stt abo j.D4 Cron.ao, Tin Birth ()(
Cbriui4nil): D~g What H~d in the Yc:arsltf'J'ff'Kdiak,"y After ~.fuauiOff of
fuus (San Franci.sc.o: Harpc:rSa.nfrancisco, 1998), p. S03.
Signifiamu of Assumption in Q 13.34-35 131
for Q served to symbolize or represent the comrnu_n ity's hope in a future

vindication of their allegiance to Jesus, especially if Q had a theological
rationale for Jesus' own post-mortem vindication. Analogies for this may
be found in a number of exalted figures in the literature of early j udaism,
6gures which appear to have played such a representative function vis·i-vis
the oommuniry of the faithful.
Such a comparison ls suggested first o f aU by the corporate view of
persecution in Q. As argued a bove, the Q people understood their own
rejection, along with the rejecrlon of john and jesus, within the de.uteron-
omistic paradigm; it appear~ moreover, that they also s.aw the rejection and
de;~th of jesus as the culminating instance of prophetic persecution. Several
sayings clusters in Q suggest a continuum of prophetic persecution which
stretched from the prophets of biblical times to their own day, and which
included not only john and Jesus but their own missionaries (Q 11.49-Sl t
7.31-35; 6.22-23).1n addition, diS<iplc:ship and mission in Q are understood
as identi6cation with Jesus (Q 14.27; 10.16). Therefore, the p<>SSibiliry that
the Q people thought their own vindication and ex.altation was cnC3psu-
lared in the vindication and exaltation of Jesus should be in\'esligat-ed. The
apoc.alyptic tone of Jesus' pose-mortem vindication in Q 13.3Sb {assumption
and parousia) invites a comparison between Q*s post-mortem jesus and
exalted figures in apocalyptic literature. Because in jewish literature one
who is assumed typically awaits an eschatological role (in an exaJced s1ate}
in heaven, h seems likely that Q's expectation of a heavenly reward is predi-
cated on Jesw' polt-rnortem exaltation.
The main texts predicting heavenly or eschatological vindication or
e>ealtation for the Q community connect such vlndication with this·worldly
identification with Jesus me Son of man. Conversely, Q texts predicting
other-worldly or eschatolog.ical punishment do $0 on the ba$is of non-
repentance or the rejec:don of God's messengers.n Heavenly vindication
i$ mentioned not only in the macarism Q 6.22· 23a, but also elsewhere in
Q. In Q 10.15, Jesus declares that Capernaum 'will be brought down to
Hades' (i(l.)s ToV {IOOu JCaTa~~ao), but it is also implied that had Capernaum
repented (cf. t0.13), they would have been 'exalted tO heaven' (t"'S oopavoo
o"""e.\ou, 10.15). Q 12.33-34 advises the hearer to 'store up treasures in
heaven', but it is not dear from the context what precisely that entails. Q
14.11, whose presence in Q is disputed, 40 refers (somewhat obliquely) to the
exaltation of the humble, and the humiliation of the ex.alred. Q17.33 speaks
of 'saving' and 'losing one's life; in what is probably its o riginal conrext~
39. The i.de:a of cschnologic~l or otber·worldly puni11h.mcnt i.s common in Q:

dertructKln by burning iQ 3.7•9, 16·17; 17.34·35); consignment 10 Hades or Gehenna
(Q tO. I$; 12.5); t.....ruy deni>l (Q 12.94 aclusoo !rom emry (Q 13.27) or !rom th.
esChatological banquet (Q 13.2.8). Tbe criteria for judgment are not aJways stated, but non..
repentance figures on ~Sf twic~ (Q 3.8·9; 10.13).
40. See Kloppcnborg. Q l'•alkis, p. 162.
132 Post-MorUm Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
bc:twe<:n 14.26-27 and '14.34-35, it has to do with t he com and rewards of

identifying with jesus.~' Other Q materials are dearer about the basis for
heavenly or escharological reward. First, Q 6.22-23a offers heavenly reward
for those who suffer revilement and perse<:ution 'because of r-hc Son of man•.
Second, in Q 12.8-9 the earthly acknowledgment of Jesus by the faithful is
correlated to the heavenly acknowledgment of the faithful by jesus, tbe Son
of man. Third, the hope of eschatological vindication for the community is
present both in the expectation of sah·ation on the day of the Son of rn.an
(Q 17 pauim) and in the promise-of a forensic or governing role over Israel
(Q 22.28, 30), where, again, ~llegi<1nce to Jesus is rhe dec-isive factor.
I. Representative Figures in Jewish Literature and Q
Ex.ahed figures in antiquit}'- patron deities 1 king.s, or redeemer figures- often

represented the fate (or bopcs) of the nations or communities which owed
them allegiance. Nickelsbu.rg and Collins have shown that exalted figures
in several writings- Wisdom 2-5, Daniel 7, the Similitudes of Enoch, and
4 Ezra - serve as mythological expressions of communal hopes:u Collins,
emphasizin,g that in ancient thought the heavenly rcaJm was viewed as more
'real' and permanent than the.earthly, a)so notes a 'homology~ berween tht$e
worlds: there is both a representative unity and a clear distinction between
r.hc exalted figure and che community. 43 Irnporr.andy, rhis is found in Daniel
7: in the vision, 'one like a human being' receives dominion and glory and
kingship (7.13 ..14), bur later in the interpretations these are given co 'the
holy ones' (7.18) or to 'the people of the holy ones' (7.27)." Collins sees
the homology between the earthly and hea,·enly worlds in the Similitudes of
E-noch as coming to expression chiefly in the 'Son of man' figure, whom he
calls the 'heavenly Doppelganger' of the righteous communiry. 4 s
In Wisdom 2-S, and also in the Similitudes, parallel names fo r the
exalted figure and the community express this representative relationship. ln
Wisdom, the 'righteous one' who so Hers injustice and murder, whose unjust
and untimely dear,b is reversed through divine favour, and who stands as
an exalted figure in the heavenly oQurt, seems tO be the representative and
4L For the original Q placement of Q 17.33, see Robln_$0n e: al., Critie.a/ Edition,
pp. 4$6-57. Also to be notl:d are Q 6.3Sb {'so that you nu.y become sons of your fathtr'},
which suggests not heavenly r~rd (pace Kloppcnborg. 'Ea!iter Fa.itb', p. 79) but coherence
with dw: dl3t3eteti$lics of the F-ather (Q 6.271.
42. Collins also s~ts that 'Mtlc:hittdck in II QMdch, ... tht man from the sea in 4
E~a 13, -and the Soo of 1.-b n in t~ N~· Teit-a-tMnc• -all {vn(;cion as heavenly 5aviour 6gures
wbo r~~ the righteow community on rM supttnaru.ral kvd (C'..ollins., A~.s}yplic
lmdginatit>n, p. i06t.
43, Collins., A/XXP/ypt~ lnutgiragtio"• pp. 105-06. 186-87,
44, Collins, ApocalyptJ·~ l~tU~giPUIJioft, p. 106.
4$. Collins. Apot4/yptk lmdgituJ.tiof,, p. 187.
Significana of A$<umption in Q 13.34-35 133
archetype or the •righteous ones'."' Both tbe. 'righteous one' (Wts. 4.16; 4.20-
S.S) and the 'righreous' (3.8) will have a role in the j udgment." With both
the community and the individual~ although death is an apparent undoing of
their hope in God (Wis. 3.2-4; 4.1S-18a), this is not the case: che hope of the
'righteous• in im mortality (3.1, 4) is parnlleled in the rescue of the •nghtt'Ous
o ne' from death - or more precisely, a/Ur death (4.10-14).
In the Similitudes of Enoch, the exalted 6gure (~llcd 'Righteous One' or
~Anointed One•1 but more frequently ctbat Son of man' or •choS('n One..')
embodies the defining characteristics of the community: 'Righteous One
and Chosen One are used in association with the broader categories of "the
righteous" and "'the chosen" .·•• In c:ootrast with the Book of Wisdom, in the
SimiUtuda there is a complex .set of associations bc:f¥1-•ten the earthly and the
heavcn1y worlds.$0 ln Collins• view, this relationship should be understood
not in terms of 'corporate personality", bur ' representative unity', with the
closest an::~.logues being patton deities in Ancient Near Eastern mythology. Sl
The function of 'that Son of man' is defined entirely in the relationship with
the earthly community, so that there is also a parallelism of action or, in the
words of Geed Theissen, a 'structural homologue' berween the eanhly and
heavenly counrerpart:s.S1 Jn Col lin s~ view:
Although~ d~ not .share their .suffering, the pattern of hiddeno.ess and re,·clation
is (;0tntoon to botb. The {a<;t th~t ~ is presttved frot'll thdr $uf!erintJ$ nuke$ him
a figure of purc power and glory and an ideal embodiment of the hopes of the
pcnccuttd righteous.. Tbt: effir.:q.doust'le$$ o( the •Son of Man• figl.lle requi.res 1hat
he be conceived as other than the community, since he mu.u possess the: power and
exaltation wfti<h they la(;k.SJ
The comparison Of Q's undernanding OFCQrpor~te vindication in relatiOn tO

jesus .as a 'rcprescncath·e figure• in analogy with Daniel?, Wisdom 2- S, and
46. For tbe 'righreoU$ one' as 'type', $ee Georgi, ' VC)(p<lulinische Htnmus', p. 272;
Nkkdsbu.rg, Renmeaion, lmmM't41ity and E'.J.ermll Life, p. 61. The 'ri.ghtrous one' (0
6irotos) i.s named in Wi1. 2..10, 12, 18; 3.10; 4.7~ 16; S.t; the 'righteous• (of 3ikatot) in
2.16; 3. 1 (cf. J..l•9h 5.1S.
47. Gl"orgi., •vatp.aulin.ischt HymnU$', p. 2 74.
48. VanderlYm ('Righteous One') hu demonsrrated the interchangeabiliry and
oorueXtuaJ (uoai.on of tbe$e four epithets for che exalted 6gure in the Similitutks.. Set also
J.j. CoJiins., 'The Heavenly Repcesenutive: The '"Son of M3n• in the SimilirudC'$ of Enoch',
in Collirus and NK:kdsbu.rg (ed.s.), ltkal Figuru U. Andmt Jud4i,_m; Profiks 41f4 P4radigrm
(S8l.SCS, 12; Missoula, M'T: Schola.l'$ Prwc, 1980), pp. t 11-33 1113).
49. Collins, ' H~'·eoly Representative~, p. 113.
50. A«:otding to Collins, tht: 'holy' and tbe 'choseo' on catth have heavenly counter·
p:a.m (the angelic host, 1 £n. 39.5; 51.4; 61.4), as wdJ as a heavenly rtprtsentative in W
'Son of man' figure {'Heavenly ReprneoulivC"', p. 113).
51. Collins, 'tk.tvenJy Represnuative~. pp. 113-H.
52. G. ThelHCP, So~olcgy of E.arJy E'4kftinian Cbritlitlnil:y (Phitadelphill: Fortress.
1978}, p. 121; cited by Collins. 'HeavenJy Represenmriv~·. p. 115.
SJ.. CoUi.oJ. <Heavenly Rcpresent.ativc·. pp. llS- 16.
134 Port-Mortem Vindication of }trus in the Sayings Gospel Q
t.he Similitudes of Enoch is co mmended not only btcause of the similaritie:s

in terminology ('Son o£ man' in Daniel and 1 EnodJ), but also because of
how ~assumption' figures into the equation (in Wisdom 2- 5 and in 1 Enoch
71}."
What is more., the functio n of the 'Son of man• figure in 1 Enoch as
explained by Collins is similar to the se-enario found in Q., wherein the
suffering or pertccution - whatever form that may actually have taken
- of the community of Jt$·u s' followers is related co that experienced by
the prophets and Jobn and by Jesus himself, as sugg~d above; but Jesus
has expe.rienced, by means of his assumption, vindlcation and exaltation
which will be manifesl at his coming as Son of man. The community's hope
to share in this, and to e.xperlenc.e salvation at the esc:haton, ls predic~ued
on their continued allegiaiJCC to Jesus. Q does not often depict jesus as an
ex.alttd heavenly figure, however, but a hint of a belief in him as such a figure
ap~ars in Q 12.8-9, and possibly Q 17.24." In addition, the acclamation
of the Coming One (Q lJ.JSb) suggests Jesus returning as a celestial figure.
If Q uses assumption to express a belief in jesus' post-mortem vindication
and Parous-ia, there are grounds at least for seeing the post-mortem jesus
in Q as not only the locus but even the archery~ of the soteriological ho~
reflected in Q, in analogy with representative exalted figures in matc-rhtls
just discussed. Three main t<Xts will be analysed: Q 12.8-9; Q 22.28, 30;
Q 6.22·23.
Z. Q 12.8-9: Confessing }e.us Publicly
T his dif6cult text has generated a great deal of discussion. T he Critic•/

Edition reconstructs it as follows:
(8) nils Os [[ov]] i>)JO~oY'\o[[nJJ iv ·~ol ·~npoclltv TWV av6pwnwv, <a((i

0uiOs- ToU av6pwnou]] OpO~oYJio[[Ol II iv mh<\> ·~rrpon&v TWV ayyiht.:Jv
.. . (9) 0s 0' QV aplll)aT)TQt ~· t~npoo9tv TWV tX\16pWTIWV, aplll}((9tjotTQI]]
i~.mpoo&iv T~v Qyy6Awv ...
S-4. Tuckctf, Q and th~ History, pp. 274-76, suggests such a comparison in his
diKussion of the Son of man i_n Q as •me perueuttd righteOus sufferer'. in a limited repre--
seor.ativc c:.~paciry; $«also Tuc~n, tQ 22:28·30', in Horr~U and l bdcett teds.), CbrisloJogy,
Cmttrot.>n:~y Mid Comm.unity, pp. 9.9-116 (11Q-l2). and Tuc.kc:n. "The Son of Man aod
Daniel 7: Q and Jn.u•". in Lindemann (cd.), The Stlyings Souru Q 4ltd lbe Historiul
Jesus, pp. 371-91 (376-81). Sec also A. Jitvineo, 'jesu.<l as Communicy Symbol in Q', in
l.indemann led.), TIN Sdyings SouTu Q IUUltlx Historical }dN4. pp• .S 1$-21.
5S. f·o r 'Son of man' in Q 12.8--9 a~ a heavenly 6gu:rc, sec DJl Catchpok, 'Tnt
Angelic Son of Man in Luke 12:8', N0c1T 24 (1982), pp. 2..S5..-6.S. Oat~hpolc chinks Q
12.8-9 and fhe Q 17 mat~rial dis-ringuish the Son of man from jesus {p. 261); compsre Uro.
·~JypticSymbolts.m', p. 103. The discit)(tioo between jesiU and the Son o( m'n in ll.S.
9 may be suppQrtabk in a tradidon-his:torical discussion of the sayiog, but this distinction
d'"pp:an wben the sayiog's function in me oonrext of final Q is comi.dered.
Signi{icanc• of Assumption in Q 13.34-35 135
(8) Anyone who [[may]J speak o ut for me in public, [[the son of humanity]]
will also speak out for him before the angels ... (9) But whoever may deny
me in publio (!will bell den[[ledJI before the angels ..."
'Son of mao' is lacking in Mr. 10.32, but rhere are good ground• for
considcrin,g that it was in Q. Probably the most significant is rhe apparent
distinction between ]C$US ('me') and the 'Son of man•.S1 The expression also
occurs in the overlap text Mk 8.38, which may be: shown on other grounds to
be independent of the Q version of the saying. n Furthermore, Matthew rends
generally to substitute the first person pronoun for •Son of man'/' but the
use here of the Matt haean •my Father in heaven' rather than 'angels' could
also have prompted the evangelist co replace 0 uiOs ToU clv6pc.lnov with iyW
(in keeping with the shift from third to first person)."
Earlier scholarship presumed a widely di$$eminatc:d idea about an exalted
'Son of man' figure," to which J esus himself referred. Sine< Q 12.8-9
implies a dist inction between the two~ Bultmann argued for the saying's
authenticiry.u As discussed above, scholars such as TOOt maintained that
early Christians identiflc:d this 'Son o f man' figure: with Jesus on the basis
of tbeir Easter e)(pe:rience.') Thlslinc of interpretation has rightly f01llc:n our
of favou; with most discussions of the-'Son of man' question nowadays
beginning from idiomatic Aramaic usage, not from an assumed religious-
historical bac kground .~ But Collins bas argued pers1.1asivdy that whereas
56. Robinson cc al"" CtitiC4l Edi:ion, pp. 304-07. Oui~ ToU O.vepWJrOV is given a (CI
raring of ¢enain ry, owing .u lean in pan ro Paul Hoffm.a nn'.s in.sm-enc.e on the Matthun
wording: P. Hoffmann, 'J tstrt venus Mensc:hcnsohn: Matthiu.s IO,l2f und di<" synoptiscbe
McDKbtnwhn·Gbcrlieferong', in P. Fted\er and L. Obertinner (td$.), Salt ckr frM - l.icht
dtt Wtlt: Extgrtisdn StuJien tum Miltthauutl{lngtlium (mtschrifr A. VOgtl~ Srungart;
Katbolitcbts 8ibdwcck, 1991), pp. 165 ..202; P. Hoft'maon ct ~J., "Confessing or Denying'.
i,n_C. Heil (td.), Q 12.:8·12: Conf~uing or Denying; Speaking against tht Holy Spirit.;
Htarittgslufort SY""gope-1 (Doc:umenta Q; Lcuven: Pttters, J997}. pp. J-42S (210-38);
P. Hofimann, 'CXr M<"nsc:bmsohn in Lukas 12:8', NTS 44 ( 1998), pp. 357..79 (366-70).
51. So Catthpole, 'An&clic Son o£ M-an', p. 255.
58. S<"c H.j. ck Jongr, 'Th<" Sa.,iags. on Confeuing and OenyingJcsU$ ln Q 12:8~9 aDd
Mark 8:38', in W.L. Pet<"rson tt at. («<s-.). $Qyi.n:s of /•sus: Qmoniul aru! NOif-.ca'ltOftical
(mucrik T. Baardo; NovTSup, 89; Lei<ku' Brill, 19 97~ pp. IOS- 21 (IIS- t7i; compare J.
l..ambrecln., 'Q·lnButne.e on Mark 8,3+-9,1', in tkolobct (ed.•. Logi.a, pp. 2n-J0.4 (285-881.
S.. abo H. Fk<ldemwm, M#d< and Q: A Study of th< Overlap Tau (BET!., 12Z; Leuvca:
L:uven Univtnity Pteu aod Peeten, l99$), pp. HS-S 1.
59. Stt H. f1cddermann, 'The Q Saying on Confessing aad .Denying', SBLSP 26
(1988), pp. 606-16 (610); ~"""''"'"'""' •nd Commmt4ry, p. sn
60. j ..:.\i. Robinson, 'Evaluation', in Heil (eel.), Q J2:8·12, pp. 200...10 •210):
Cstthpok. ' Angtlic Son o( Man', p. 2.56.
61. See Colli.,., s..pr.,. and Slot , pp. 17J-7S; RobiiJ$00, 'Soo of Man', p. 32S.
62. 5« Bulcmann, History) pp. 112, 128, 151- 51.
63. T&lt, S... of.\14•, pp. S6-S7 (oo Q 12.8·9), 252-SJ. S..: RobJo.oo, 'Son of Mao',
pp. 32$-27.
64. See Ha~ Son of Mtm Tr.Jilio,, pp. 25~59 .
136 Post-Mort#!m Vindieation of jesus in the Sayir~gs Gospel Q
there may not have been an established and widely disseminated Son of man
'idea• in circulation before o r by the rurn of dle era, there: are indications
that by then there were 'conunon assumptions' a bout t he meaning of the
'one likt. a son of man• jn DanjcJ 7."'
Questions of authenticity aside, tr is possible that Q 12.8 did distinguish
between Jesus and the Son of man at an early stage in its tradition history.
Jacobson, for insrance, suggestS t hat in both 12.8-9 and 12.10 the Sott of
man 'is simply the heavenly prostcutor who a rgues the case before t he
divine judge. But neither in Q 12.8-9 nor 12.10 is jesus identified with this
he;~venly prosecutor figure'.'6 For Jacobson, as for Bulcmann, this distinction
is evidence that these verses are 'relatively early'.11 Similarly, Catchpole sees
the distioction between Jesus and the Son of man as evid~nce for the s..aying's
primitivity (even authemiciry). 61 While traditlon~his torically it may be apt
to observe such a distinction, the context of the rest of 6nal Q- in which
jesus is the Son of man- means the saying should be interpreted in that light.
How can an identification bet¥.•ec:n jesus and the Son of man of Q 12.8-9
be understood?
For Robinson, who sees no distinction berween the speaker and the Son
of man in Q 12.8~9, the self·referemial use of 'Son of man' in Q is c,ritical.
He thin.ks the e~pressioo is used sclf-rc:fc:rcntlally here as in other Q sayings
(Q 6.22; 7.34; 9.58; I 1.30; even 12.1 0).
Those .,·ho coniess the 'buman•, understood u a (:amili.a r re(ertnct I() Jc:~us perhaps
gc>i~ b.ack ro j e, ui himk!U, will find him the re ac the judgment a' their cbac-.u;ter
wita.ess, wbc:reas those who deny him will ~ denounced bt• him .u the judgmeru
(~ in Q 13.25-ln, This role of the 'son of man', jtsus, engendered other '$on of
man• u.yings 3S$ocl:ated w ith 1M e$dl~tologic.a l judgmem, ... rht elllCbatologicaf or
prophetic (correlatives) (Q 17.24. 26, 30)."
This explains (arguably) the development of the eschatological Son of mao

$ayings in Q, but the view of t.be Son of man in 12.8·9 as character witness
does not make sense in light of other sayings in Q fo r which the Son of man
comes as judge (including Q 12.39-40, 42-46: 17.24, 26, 30: ao.d possibly,
with the speaker as o ipxo~<IIOS, 13.35).10
The presence of angels in Q 12.8-9 suggests that in t his scene the Son
o f man is a he3venly 6g\lre in some sen5e.i' 1 How then is the relationship
65. Co!Jins,SuptM4mdStgr, p. 175.

66. ja<:obson, First Co!pel, p. 188.
67. jac;obson, First Gospel, p. \ 89.
68. Catcbpol<, "Angelic Son of Man', pp. 259~0.
69. Robimon, 'Evalustion', in HeiJ (ed.), Q 12:8· 12., p. 209.
70. Xe Hare, Scm of MDn Tt~ulilion, p. 223, who disag.ret:$ with die ¥iew of 'Son o(
man· :1.$ character wiUle:S$ in Q 12.8. arg"ing that this saying's tradoe:nts aeknowkdged 'the
rism jesus as thl: Christ, tbc eschatologOI king' .
71. Uro, 'Apoalypr;.:Symbolism', p. I03.
Signi(ie<Jna of AsswmptiQn in Q 13.34-JS 137
betw..n the 'Son of man' and 'me' to be underSI.ood? Here Q 6.22 offer>
some help. There, 'Son of man' refttS ro jtsus u an eanhly figure, aUcgianee
to whom in the faa of pen«urion -was the criterion for heavenly reward.
In Q 12.8·9, rhere is a similar correlation between allegiancen to the earthly
6gure Cme'), and reward whtc.h comes by means of the heavenly 6gurt (•Soo
of man'), whether be functions as judge or advocate. ThuJ the disrinaion
need not bt betw«n Jesus and the Son of man as rwo different persons (even
if such a distinction w.ts made during the uadition hisrory or the saying} but
rather between different functions or phases of jesus' existence."
lnvenigadng the uying at the ~arli<st level of it$ tradition history,
C.tchpole suggesred that the Son of man figure in this saying is the 'heavenly
gucarontor' of the eanhly jesus~ an angelic being occing at che heavenly
coumcrpan or sponsor, an idea present elsewhere (e.g., Tob. 12.15; 1 En.
104. 1; Qnd Lk. 1.19) which amounts to 'an individu•lising of the o ld idea
of an angelic ruler for cacb nation {cf. Dan. I 0.11; 12. 1; Sir. 17. 17)'."
Catchpole considers that Daniel 7 and Mr. 18.10 both s uggest this kind of
relarionship between angelic figwes and human beings o r communitjes.n
This sug;senjon about the Son of man'$ function as a representative figure
here is important, although rwo adjusllll<nrs to Carchpole5 perspective are
necu~ry for it tO do ju$riCC to the saying~s meanin' in Q : 6rst, concerning
the saying's supposed distioaioo berween jrsu.s and the Son or ~n; .second,
concerning the function of the Son of man.
To rhe fint point~ with a focus on tbc function o( this saying wit bin Q,
u hu already be.n argued that Q consider> jesus as both e.a rthly teacher
and heavenly 6gure, and use> 'Son of man' freely for both pbaS<s of his
existence. To the •ccond point, some darificJtion it required, even apart
from rhis obscrvar:ion. Catchpole suggested, relying mainly o n Mt. 18.10,
chat the rcprescnuuivc relationship is between Jcsut 11.nd the Son of man,
his heavenly counterpart or sponsor; this relationship is extended co the
"confe1sins group who together fwith Jesutl conStitute the community for
whose intertSTS and security the Son of man vouch~ in heaven' .'• Mt. 18.10
docs indeed appear lO be evidence for a belief in a ngelic rtpresentative:s for
72. C.cdl..,&......., 1ustiDcd U. his uw..mc. ,.,., m. ooui>Wrr of~ and

dmJinlnplito ............1-~oi~lrd~wd>' ~thtttlwl
• lotpllttrina for the c.ommunitfs allcgia.oa:.. cYc::D thouch thst 1C!rmS co be the cax with
Q I l.IH 2. Th,. di.Oplall;p ;s do< ru..wn.atsl ;.,.,. (C.cdlpolt, 'l...dic Soo of Man',
1>9· 257...19; , ....... ~ 258~
7J. So Polog. Clmuo/ogi<, p. II<; Sdou... Si'"'U..,.•II•, p. 68; Hollmann, Shod;..,
PJ>. Ul-l6; Fkdd<rmron, A~ <lnd c,.._,.l4ry, p. ·" I.
S.. aloo C.t<hpole,
'Ang.cltc Son ol Mm~, pp. l.SS-56 and nn. 5.-6;. dt Jonge, 'Confe:Nins•nd Otoylng', p.
118.
7<. C.t<hpok, 'A~ic Son of M>n', p. 260.
?S. C.tc:hpole. 'Angelie Son of Man', pp.l,l -62. 264, and UO, re11pa:~ivcly.
16. ~Atchpol~:, 'AngcJicSon of Man', p. 261.
138 Post-Mortem Vindi<ation of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
jndividual humans." However, theotht,r main text adduced by Catchpole is

Daniel 7, where the 'one like a son of man' i·S representative of a community,
'the holy ones of the Most High'.''
The. question here is thus whether Mt. 18.10 or Daniel 7 is t he bener
analogy: is the Son of man's function in confessin.g and denying directed
towards jesus or the community? As Catchpole rightly argues, 'the
o~ol.oytiv/irpvtio8al complex of ideas ... frequently included a community
awareness'." ln addition, he notes that the point of the saying is sotcrio-
logi,al, with response tO Je.sus being the key issue., and that this conforms
well with other Q ma<erials (especially Q 6.47-49) ... The saying, then, is
about communiry salvation at the judgment, a nd the crirerion is allegianu
to Jesus, expressed by means of confession, probably in some kind of public
forum (Q 12.11· 12). Given this community emphasis in Q 12.8·9, why
understand the Son of man as •rhe angelic counterpart o f Jesus and, by
extension, of those attached to him in discipleship'?t1 This either introduces
a mediacor Uesus) inco the usual relationship between representative figure
and ~ommuniry (following Daniel 7), or it adds a community aspect not
consistent with the idea of a personal heavenly representative (foiJowing
ML 18.1 0). Furthermore, on Catchpole's construal of Q 12.8·9, it is still not
clear why the Son of man is the heavenly represemative of Jesus, particu~
larly b«:ause representative figur« in the texts discussed above provide an
otherworldly foundation for the hopes of the community. These observation$
support the view that the Son of man is the heavenly 6gure who represents
the community whose allegiance to (the earthly) jesus is being tested (Q 12.2·
12). The representative function of jesus lhc Son of man is clearer, however,
in Q's conduding .saying.
3. Q 22.28, 30: judging the Twelve Tribes
The presence of this pertcope in Q has sometimes been questioned, as has

its locadon,u though most scholars believe it was the concluding saying.n
77. W.O. Davits and D.C. Allison, 11u Gosptl At:cording to $dint Afdnhtw (ICC;
3 ...,!,,; £4inbu<gh: T6cT Q,&, 1988-1997), pp. 2.770-72< U. Lux, M..W..w 8- 20: A
Comnumury (Hr:r.mcnei.a; Minneapolis: Fonrcss, 2001), pp. 4<W-o43.
78. OJJ the relatiOil$b.ip bet'weeo the ·one l ike~ S()n of m.1o• <~nd the 'boly OOi':s' i.o
Danjel 7? see J.j. Co11ins, Donitl: A Commen/4ry on the Book of Dt~n.i~l (Hetrl:\en.eia;
Mil.'lnl:apolis: Fonress, 1993 ~. pp. 304-10, 313-17; Collins, Apoc.olyptie lmDginat;cm, pp.
101-07.
79. Catdtpok, 'An«eltc. Son of Man', pp. 260-61.
80. Cuchpok, 'Angdic Son of Man', p. 261. A$ alrudy noud.. $l:Veral other Q rem
;.how that aUegioUk:t to Jet;U$ is the: criterion for salvation (or condcmo.a.tion): Q 6.2Z..23a;
10.13-lS; 1-4.26-27; 17.33; 13.34-35.
81. Catch_po~ 'Attgtlic:: Son of Man', p. 26$.
82. for $l.ltvey o( 3Chobt$h.ip and di.Kuuion seeP. Hoffmann ct at.. Q 22:28. JO: Y011
WiU Judte th~ Twelve Tribes of J.srad {cd. C. Hei1; Docu.mcnta Q; Lcuvcn: PeetttS, 1998),
pp. -4-<;8, 69-141.
Significanu of As.umptio~ ;,. Q I J.J4.J$ 139
Matthew and L11ke dill<r considerably in both wording and coni at. though
there is some basic qrec:menr:
(28) ,jp,is .. oi «•oAoue!ioavns 1101 (JO) .. •o91\ofoe. i•i 8p0v((OU51J

•piiiOVT1s Tas &.O&xo ~Aas Toolopmi.\.
(28) •. You who hove followed m< (30) will sit .. on thronts judging the
twelve tribes of (srael.''
There are many que$riOos concerning rhis text's reconstruction, most o f

which lie outside the purview of the present investigation. One which does
no1is whether Q 22.30 originally contained 'Son of man' (so Mt. 19.28b). A
Mmhaca.n double!, which likewise deocribes the Son of man sitting 'upon the
1hrone of his glory' (Mt. 25.31), has led mos1scholars 10 1hink that Manhew
added 'Son of man' to t9.28b.u This is probably correct, but for the: prcse:ot
purposes the more imponant question is how Q originally formulated the
condi1ion for receiving the judging role (Q 22.28): does Ma1thew (Wris oi
«•oAou8rioovris110•l or Lllke (v~ils 60 ian oi 6oa~tlltll!)oci>ns ~·T' ij.IO\j i•
TOtf mopaOJJQis IJOU) give the closer reading 10 thai of Q?" Fleddcrmann
suggests on grounds of vocabulary that luke's vusion is redactio~ 10 that
'something like ciJ<OAoueojoavris 1101 must have srood in Q because Luke's
6•a~llltii!)<C>Tt5 ~tT' i~ou expresses more or less •he same ide<~'." Q 14.2?
certainly supporu lhi$. On these ground• Q 22.28, JO con•idut a 'judging'
role for the community as a reward for allegianct ro Jesu.s.
Wha1 exactly 1his judging role entails is undcar. One poosibiliry is the
usual sense of determining guih ar tht final judgment,•• choush some: havt
sug,gc:sted that ..governing• i.s more appropriate bert." tn favo ur of the latter
solution are materials such as Ps<. Sol. 1? .26, which looks ahead to 1he
83. LOhrmann, Ktddlticm, p. 75; lCioppenbora,. PormotkHt. p. 95; H. F\~dumann,

'l1te End of Q', SBLSP 2' (1990), pp. 1-10; JGdt, Compos/tioo, pp. 294-,S; Tuckeot, 'Q
22,18·30', pp. 100, 10~; Zelko; 'z.kwth hnel•'• p. 362.
84. RobiMOn ft al., CritiuJ Etliti<m,. pp. S5s-6J.
IS. Soc HoffmaDD ct. aJ., Q lz,ll . .!0, pp. 336-79: TU<k<a, 'Q 22.,u·30', p. 102.
36. Soc Hoffman~~<t.al. Q ZZ,ll, .!0, pp. IS<-9S.
17. f1c.dduma.n.n, 'End of Q', pp. 2-3; ser also Hoffmann, 'EnlwhOft', io Hoffmum
<tal, Q lUI. .!0. pp. 191-95; Tuckett, 'Q lUI·JO', p. 102.
II. Jlorioc, S.,...C>, p. 178; f1c.dduma.n.n, 'End of Q', p. I ; P. Hoffm.nn. 'Hen.dw:r
ockr Richcc:r QMr bndl', ift G~ ~ a:od K.. W~ (nb..J, J• wiWI Ntt~t: c::Jwislli<lk
'TIH<Jiop - A•,md>t W..t. (Fnachrift Ill'. Sduov, Nnlld«hca· VI•,..., ~
I"IJ. pp. 2S~ (26J~ Kl"!>penbo<&. f.x<=o~ti>of Q, p. 192; :Z.Ii<• 'ZukW>It llrub', p.
363: J. V<tbcydcn. "lb. Concl...ion of Q. f.Khatolosr in Q 2l.ll·30', ia u..,.....,..Ced.J.
n. s.y,.,, S<>oru Q •..t tb< Huroric.>IJ•r.u. PI'· 695-111 (7121.
I'. S.. jocoboon, First Gosp.l, p. 248; R. Honley, 'Social Conlli<t in the S7"0pti<;
Sayinp Source Q', in j .S. KloppenbotJ (ed.), Coojlia...,. , • .,..,kJ., Uur"'1> Rb<toric.ol
6M Sod41Stud.iu 011 the Sayings Gospa Q {V;~lley fof'Sl', PA1Triniry Prc:se lotcttLatiooal.
1995), pp. J?-51(44-SI).
140 Post·Morlem Vindi<ation of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Messiah restoring .and judging (ruling) the rribes of the people? as well as
other texrs predicting a s--i milar role for tht faithful (e.g., Dan. 7.13·14, 18,
22; 1 En. 62.1, 14; R.v. 3.21 ), which focus 'on o ruling function rather than
the administration of justict' .to In addition, some think that 'thrones• - oot
to mcntjon whatever stood as the object in 22.18 - suggests the e..ootablishment
of a kingdom, rather than a judgment scenario.' 1 However, nowhere else in
t he New Te$tament is the verb Kpivc.> or its cognates used in chis sense/l
and r:p1 n)5 is used in Q wberc there is a negative outcome for the o ne(s)
being judgcd.n Fleddermann rightly notes rhat the 'ruling' or 'governing'
inte-rpre.t atlon of Kph10VTE5 requires a 'reconstituted (sr<tel', _. concept that
appear-s tO bt foreign toQ.94 1'he reference to rhe twelve uibes is best viewed
as synonymous for aU lsraela.s under the judgment of jesus' followers, whose
earthly a llegiance to him was tested in synagogues (Q 12.11· 12)."
'Escharofogjcal reversal'* as the central idea of rhe kingdom language in
Q," confirm~ this view and offers a clue ro the significance of the 'judgjng'
saying as the concluding pcricopc. 'Before the end time the disci,plcs must
nor judge (Q 6.37}, and they are subject tO judgrneru in the court of their
adversaries (Q 12.11· 12), but in the end time the disciples will judge che
twelve tribes of Israel, sharing in the judging role of je:sus.''7 lf teplvCoJ in Q
22.30 means 'judge', rather rhan 'govern', the.n thecharacteriscic that Collins
discerned in the relationship berween exaJred figures and the communities
whose fates t hey represent- ' parallelism of action'" - is a lso present in
Q, for paralld judging roles ate expected for Jesus the Son o f man and for
tbc communiry. Something similar was expected in the SimiUtudts for the
community of the righteous (I En. 38.1-6), and this could olso be ocgued in
regord to Daniel 7.
90. Jacobson, Fitst Cos~l. p, 248, although I Enoth 62 deal$ with tht condemnation
al'ld anrtihll.1tion of wicked ru~ U En.. 62.11·13); rdcrC'-OC.C'S to •righteous and dttt' (vv.
14-16) do nol ck2rly have a ruJing function i_n view.
91. J:acobtlon, Pirst G()fPt:/, p. 248.
92. Soj. Dupon" 'LcLogion d•douzecron<>S (Mt 19.2Jl;l.c22,28·30f,Bib45 0%4),
PI>· 3$5-92 (372); Kloppenborg. &cav•#ng Q. p. 192; Thd<en, 'Q 22:28-30', p. 103. S.•
Q 6.37; 12.58; 11.31-32.
93. Zel~ 'Zult-unh lstaeiS", p.363: Q 11.19; 12.$8.
94. Fleddc:rmann, 'End ofQ', p. 8;Zdkr, '2:u.kuoft Jsuelt'.
9$. Tbe use o( ~~).).c.) in Lie 6.22 could be a Q refe.ren« tO expuJsion from
syt'l.1gog~o~<s) but it probably wt5 not originally io Q; S« Zdl«, 'Zukunft W ads', p. 364.
96. Set Acdderman~ 'End of Q', p. 10; TU(:Iteu, Q and the Hi#ory, pp. 141-4~
K&oppenborg, F.xC4Wirlng Q, p. 381. Kirk, Composition, pp, 289- 308, Stc.'S csc.hatologicaJ
rC'fcu.al u fhc promiocm tbl::me of~ major co!D.pOiitional unit be identi6e$ as Q 12-22.
97. Fkdder.mann, 'End o( Q'. p. 10; &« simi.l.:uly Klf)ppenbort../Vrmatio."~ p. 9$.
98. Colli.OJ, 1-ieavdlly Rep!C$C'Otatin:', p. 115.
SignifiC411ce of Assumption in Q 13.34-35 141
4. Q 6.22-23: Great is Your Reward in Heaven
The Q Sermon's fourth mocorism connects allegiance co Jesus (che Son of

man), as shown by being per!>tcuted for his sake, with a heavenly reward .
(22) ~OKaptoi ion (>TO:V OV<t6io"'OlV upiis '"' U6tw~))"'Ol V <Ol

[[<inj](o)(llV[[naviJ nov~pOV ([Kae·n
u~wv '"'"'"TOO
uio.:J av8pc.>nou. TOU
(23) xo:lpm Ko:i flayo:Mt&o8<1J, C>Tt 0 ~·o90s -~Olv ITOAUs iv T.;i oVpav.;i·
oi/Tc:.Js yap l[i6i"'~avJI TaUs npo$jTos TaUS rrpo u~wv.
(22) Blessed ore you when they insulc and [[persecucell you, and [[say
every kind of]) evil [[againscJJ you becau$C of che son of humanity. (23)
Be glad and ([exulc]], for vase is your reward in heaven. Foe chis is how
rbey ([perscx:utedll the prophets who wece before you."
Q 6.22 shows that ostracism, persecution, and ~nathcmadzatioo were

expected 'on accounc of' (iVEKiY) che Son of man. ' 00 Q 6.23a continues wich
an exhortation to rejoice, and a reason: •because your reward is great in
heaven'. This oonn.ects the idea of heavenly reward with earrhly suffering
lor the sake of t he Son of mon. The usc of 'Son of man' here indicates t hat
jesus ls cemral to the reward: allegjance to him is the ctirerio·n for receiving
heavenly rew:~rd, t hough possibl)' Jesus is also in view as the one who wiU
dispense such reward (as a lso in Q 12 . 8~9). 101 Yet •Son of man' in 6.22 dots
not refer to the heavenly o r coming Son of man (see alsoQ 7.34; 9.58; 11.30,
probably; 12. 10, possibly). Yet irs use here is not insignificat1t if ocher texts
in Q -associate 'Son of mao~ with coming judg:menc and the dispensation of
other-worldly recompe-nse.
The 'biStorieal' reference to the mistreatment of prophets probably consti-
tutes a deureronomisrlc :1ddition,101 probably prompted by the reference w
persecution in 6.22, though there may be another dimension to the redac-
tional addition. If - and this i$ t'O anticipate somewhat the. re!:iults of the
investjgation of thcs.c three te)Ct:S - it is correct tha t the hope of coq><>rate
vindication in Q is based on a conviction about Jesus' vindication, the
addition was perhaps prompttd by the fact that both persecution (as tht
dcutcconomisti_c: materials suggest.) and vindication were understood c:orpcr
rately by those who framed Q. Or; co puc ir dillerenrly, Q presented a direct
99. Robinson ct aL, Critie.al f;dition, pp. 50-53.

100. On the origia..liey of 'Son of Man' in Q 6.22, sec: Schulz, Spruchquelk, p. 4S3;
j.S. KloppenbQrg, 'Blessing :tnd M.:~~ rg.itWi ry: The "P~rse.:ution Bt:atitudt• iJl Q. Thomu.,
~nd Early C hrist-ianity' , Forum 2 (1986), pp. 36-56 (41); Fledd«mlll'ln, 'Conf~sin& and
Oeoying', p. 610~ Tud~n, Q 4N1 the History, p. J 80 n. $0.
101. Jn :addition, the •day' ot W 'coming' of th~ Son of m:t.n is, in Q. the occasion of
juc:lg.tnent and chr ditlpet1$.1tion of JC"WI!rd and putli$h1<nrrtt (Q 12.39oo40, 42--46; Q 17 pauim;
Q 19 p.wim).
102. Set- ~k, Israel, pp. 25?-'0; KJoppmborg, Formation, p. 113; Jacobwn, Fint
CostJd~ pp. 1~1; Tuckm. Q att.d the History, p. 180.
142 Post-Mortem Vindk<ztion of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
cofrelation bctwc:en Jesus' rwin fate of rejection and vindication, and a

similar fate for the community.
S. lmpli<ations
The 'parallelism of action' rhar Collins saw in Daniel? and in che SimiUtudes
of Enoch also exists in Q between jesus and the community, and includet a
shared mis$iOn (Q 10.16), a shared experience of persecution and rejection
(Q 6.22-23; 10.10-11; 10.16; 11.49-51; 12.2-3; 12.11- 12; 13.34-JS) and
also revelation (10.21-22; 10.23-24), and a shared heavenly or eschatological
vindication (6.22; 12.8-9; 22.28, 30).'"' Q does nor use the same kind of
parallel designations for the-exalted figure and the co-mmunity as are present
in Wisdom 2- S or tbe Similitudes of Encx;h, bur rbe parallels in earthly
ae-rjviry and orhe-r worldly vindication berween jesus and the Q communiry
are clear. Along these lines Tuckett commcnn:
Tht.re has ... in Q been a clear distinction drawn between jesus on the ont hand
and his followers on che ocher. He and he alone is the SM. Yet the explano.rion and
rM tdOiutjon of th~t tbtodicy problem (aotd by rhe Q Cbriniant in rhtir pr$nf
situation is tbe same a.s [the] r~olurion for Jesus h.i.mself: juu as he too will act a•
judge over Otheu who tuv~ not res-ponded, iO tOO will th(oy. J04
Tuckett rightly erophasites that jesus is not a corporate figure like those in
Daniel 7 or the Similitudes of Enoch; ye~ the •sM sayings provide a "'srruc-
turaJ homolog-ue" with the experience of his followe('S'. 10s
Give:n the presence of assumption language in Wisdom 2-5, the Similitudes
(though probably secondarily), and Q, it could be inferred that 'assumption'
in these texts was the means by which an •e<Jrrhly' figure was insraiJed a.s a
re:pre.se:nrative heavenly figure. This might be ro press the point roo far, for
Qat leas~. For Qthe vindicotrion or lcgitim~rion of jesus, present and future,
pro\'ides the basis for the vindication of the community: Jesus' persecution
and rejection were reversed, and so will the p;u:·aUel experiences of the
community, upon his return as the Son of man. Here again conclusions must
remain tentath'e, because while assumption language is used ln connection
with eschatological function in Q 13.34-35, in me
texts just examined the
locus of vindication is precisely thar eschatological function of Jesu.s the Son
of man; the connection to •assumption~ can only be made. by implication.
Nor is assurnptioo extended from the individual '(.~.ase' o f jes-us to become
103. See Kloppenborg. f<lrma#o-. p. 95; Fledd<nnoo.o. 'End of Q', p. 10.

10ol. Tuelu:n, 'Q 2,2,28-30', p. 112; "" also Tuclu:tt, 'Son of Man and Dani<l 7', p.
379. where he nota cbc $lmillrities bc:t1rfec:n Q 22.28, 30 and Dao.icl 7, the Simil~ of
Err.odt, aod Wisdom l-5 ~ and coadudes that 'in Q W\" art: still within tbe samt general
netWOrk Qf ideas, even if tbt detail~ do aot match preci.stty any o( ~other ~Itt$ we havt
coos*rcd'.
105. Tuck<rt, 'Q 2H8-30', p. 111.
Significance of Assumption in Q 13.34-35 143
part of th~ community's eschatological hope in Q asl" possibly, in 1 Tbess.

4.17. 1 ~ Rather, as in Luke·Acts, jc:sus' assumption is nor a paradigm for the
vindication of the fai thful community, but provides the means whereby it
ultimately is actuali:ted; for the assumption of jesus is conn~ud in Q 13.35
with his return as the Coming One, when followers would be rewarded for
<heir fai<hful discipleship by sharing in his vindic~tion. Never<heless, the
corporate vindication hoped for in Q as the reward for earthly allegiance to
jesus wou1d be impossible withour his own exaltation a nd vindication, as
both its precedent and its christological basis.
Q 11.29·30: The Sign of Jonah
ln his essay 'EmrUckung zur Ankunft als Menschensohn', Zeller s uggeste-d

that the 'Sign of Jonah' refers to both rescue from death and coming
judgment, with assumption as the point of the comparison between Jonah
and the Son of man. As reconstructed in the Critical Edition, Q 1 1.29·30
reads a s followo:
(2.9) (foi)OI .. (lol1Tovl) .. · q y&voix aim) y&wix 1TOliTJpCx •. ianv· "'l~•lov

~~nl, •oi CJilllii011 oo &>ello<TOI aUTO &i I'll ...0 "'l~&lov 'lc..l\la. (30) U<o8J]O,
yapiyiV<To 'l"'v(i~ Tol~ Nn>tuiTo,~ "'l~•lov, ooT"'S" iCJTal ((<at}] ouil>s
TOO irvllpWlTOII TOY'"'~ TcWrn.
Bur .. [fhe said]) .. : This generation is an evll .• ge.neration; it demands a
sign, but a sign wiU not be given to it - except the sign of Jonah!
For as Jonah became to the Ninevites a sign, so [[also)] will <he son of
humanity be to this generation. 107
The sayin.g is nororiou$ly difficult to inrerprec, and has given rise to a large
body of secondary literarure. ' 01 Tradition-historical questions have resulted in
106. SetJ. P1evn.ik, 'The Taking Up of the Faithful:~~nd rhe R~wrection of the I>Hd i.n
I Tll<ssaloruans H 3-18', CBQ ~6)1984), pp. 27•-8J;.vmp;u< AJ. Malh<:rbc, Tho L<tr trt
t() th~ T~l()ni4nJ: A N~ Tr.m dari(),. with lntrodudi()n JWJ Commml4ry (AS. 32.6;
~w York: Doublt-d.ay, 2000}, pp. 275-76, who foru~m.ainJy oo the consolatOry tradit;on
u bac:kgrOWld f<>r the~ of Optrci'~w in 1 The••· 4.17. ln Q 17.34-35, 1rapa).a~
$U88tst$ not chto assumption of r~ f:aithful bur the sW«ping ~W2Y of rht ces.t, as in Genoi5
19; ~ KJoppeobor&, 'Symbolic: Eschatology md the Apoealypricism o( Q', HTR 80 ( 1 937~
pp. 287-.\06 (.\02-3).
107. Robins<>n et at..• Critkdl Edition. pp. 2:48-St.
108. For swveyll of schol ars.hip~ s.ct A. VOgtk, ·Oer Spruch ''Om Jonaszekben'. in
Das EwngcUum utsd die E.vangcUen: Bcltrate %W1 £vat~gtlirnforsc.bunt (DUs.s.cddorf:
Pam:tos, 1971), pp. 103-.36; Edwards, Sign of)ONb, pp. 6-2.4; S. Chow, 1M S,'p ()/ ]OMb
Ruonsidntd: A Shldy of lu ldulcing in tM Gostnl Trilditions (Con.8NT, 21; Stockholm:
AIR.1q•ist ac Wikscll, 1995).
144 PI>St-Mortem Vindication ofJesus in the Sayings Gosptl Q
widely diverging opinions concerning the original form of the saying and its
subsequent redaction.'~ Discussions of the $3ying ln Q tend to go one of two
ways. Some see the 'Son of man• reference as present, and the future 1,·erbs
in 11.29-30 as logical or gnomic futures, with the t.ertium comparationis
(on the basis of Q 11.32) being repentance proclamation, 110 or judgmem
proc)a_mation .'" O thers rhink the future verbs and the refecc:oce tO the Son
of man are. eschatological: che 'sign of Jonah' is the Son of man coming in
judgment at the Parousia.m In the past, these readings have 5ometimts seen
'resurrection' as the tertium compar11tionis (with or without help from Mt.
12.40), and as the basis for t he confession of Jesus as the Son of man.uJ
Zeller began by observing that the saying does not negate a sign entirely,
bur promises one.11 • The •sign of Jonah• - which he (rightly} took as an
cpcxegeticaJ genith•c 11S - has tO be a •real' ('wirklich'} sign, thus excluding
solutions which take the sign as Jesus• repentance.. preacbing. Zeller a lso
insisted that the future verbs in 11.29-30 (001h}oE'fOt, EcTal ) arc eschato-
logical futures. rather than gnomic or logical furures.11 ' Others have argued
similarly. Rich:ud Edwards a.fgued that Q 11.2.9 ..JO has a future orientation
because it deploys the 'eschatological correlative' form he-thought originated
with the Q community.' 17 This form in Q 'compares the coming of the Son of
man with the judgment which fell upon the contemporaries of Noah, Lot and
Jonah .... ln every case, the coming of the Son of man ls proclaimed because
of the judgment ro be expected on his atrival: m Datyl Schrnidt, however,
confirmed rhat the correlative form occurs frequently in t he Sepruagint. 119
109. Sot llihrmann. Rtdaktion, pp. 34-43; Schilrm1nn, •son ofM;an Title', pp. 83-84;
KlopJM:nbor,g, Formation. p. t33.; Tuc:.kett, Q ami tht: Hist-ory. p. 2.60.
110. So, for inst.tn«:, Tuck~ Q and tht HistOf')', p. 266.
111. Stt Kloppenbor&. Formation, pp. l 32-3-4; j-acobson. First Cospel, p. 165.
112. &.hro.11nn.., Hislory, p. 118; TOdt,S<m o/ Man, pp. 270-71; Liihnna.nn. Re.dakflon,
pp. 40-42; 1-toffmann, Studkn, pp. 157, 181; Sato. Q und Prophttie., p. 283; Catebpo~.
Q11est, p. 2.-46.
J 13. See Edwards, Sip of)Ott4h. pp. S+-51, following T(Xit, Son of Man, p. 231; see
tlso Xhtinnaan, •son of Man Tide'. p. 83. Mor~ re<:rntly. stet e.g., Chow, S1'gn 6( }OMb
Rtronsiderr:d, pp. t67-74i 'ompare: Wright, ' Resurrection in Q?', p. 94: 'the rt3urrectioo
(If the Soo of Man, $CC:Jl .u future from the pe-rspecth·e of the .saying in the mouth of ~
ptt·E:Istt:t j tsUt, will be- tht equivalent •s.ig.n"•.
114. Zellcro 'Entriidumg", p. 520. a. Catc:hpoie, QtUst, pp.l-45-47, who chinks thto
'iign of joruab' amoWlcs to~ refusal of ;a sign 3$ 2 warning o( the Son o( rmn'$ coming.
llS. Zdkr, ''Eotriic:kung', p. 520; ao also Schiirmann, 'Son of Man lid~·, p. 83 n. 49.
'fbi: saying requires ;an epe:x-egedcal reading. s.ince Jonah •bc<.:amc• (iyiwTo, v, 30), rather
than 'gave' (compare oV 6oeQolTOI, v. 29), a s.ign tO the Ninevitcs. Tbus, since v. 30 relatfl:
the Son of m.sn to the sign of (th.at is, oonsisring in}Jon.ab (oiin.>s iOTal ka h, 'this ~gn wili
be tbe Son of man bim3elf' (Zeller. ··Entrii<:kung'. p. 520; author's translation).
116. Zelle~; 'l!.nrrik kung·, p. 520.
117. Ed:wuds, Sign ofJonah, pp. 4.9• .SS; Tuckett however di:sputt11 how clOJcly parallel
are tbe oorrelativcs ln Q 17 to Q 11.30 (Q t~nd the History, p. 2.61).
I 18. Edwards, Sign ofJonah, p. 53.
119. D. Schmidt, •The-. LXX G.attuqg .. Prophetic Corrdativt"', JBL 96 (t9n). pp.
517-21.
Signi(ieanu of A"umption in Q !3.34-35 145
Furthermore, the correlatives isolated by Schmjdr do nol aU refer to action
in the dismnt or eschatological fu ture, as do Q 17.24, 26, 30. " 0 ln addition,
sayings about 'this generation' a.re- not exclu.sively about the eschatological
judgment (see Q 7.31 -35), but when they do, rhe focus is on their activit)'
in the present as the basis for condemnation in tbc future. Q 11.31, 32 state
thar 'this generation' will be wndemned at the judgment by the Queen of
the: South and by the Ninevites; they responded pOsitively co emissaries
o£ Wisdom (Solomon and Jonah}, but 'this generation' did not. 'Behold,
something greater ... is here' (i600 rrA£1ov ... cScSt.) focuses on the pr.esc:nt
reaction of 'this generation' {especially when read together with Q 7.31-35).
Even if Q 11.31-32 reptesenl$ a redactional addition to Q 11.29-30, the
perspective it offers on 'this generar-ion' is still important for the meaning of
that term in Q 11.29~30. Thus an e$Cbal'ologkal reading of the future verbs
in Q 11.29-30 is noc required, nor r~ommended> by the presence of ~this
generation• in the saying or its contexL
Zeller also observed thar v. 29 is a judgmenr saying> with both an
•accusation? and a "threat'; t he th reat is developed in v. 30. Since 'this-
generation> is both criticized for demanding. a sign, and then told it would be
given one as an exception, Zeller argued that 'the s ign that legitimates Jesus
signifies judgment for the 11evil generation"'. 121 The sign_1 [hen, is the Son of
man himself ooming in eschatological judgment. The form-critical obser-
vation is ,.aJid, as is the: implication that the 'sign' h:u to do with j udgment
-but only on chc grounds that Jonah and jesus both proclaimed an imminent
judgment; it does not follow rhnt the Son of man was to become a sign to
'this gcneratioo' at his eKhatological manife.natlon as judge. This '·iew must
dep<nd on an eschatological unders01nding of ioTat /v. 30), which /as seen
above) is not required by the context.
Zeller argued that 'the sign of Jonah' was jesus, taken away by assumption
in order to become, as t.he Son of man who comes- in judgment, the sign of
this generation's condemnation. Zeller rhoug.ht Enoch's role in ]ubiftes
4 (and elsewhere) as a judgment sign is an important due' 'The [Son of
man's] word is the basis of decision in the heavenly cowt. But if he should
become tO •this generation' a sign with the authority to convict, the example
of Enoch leads us to suppose that jesus reaches this office by rncans of his
assumption. m The obvious question is: 'then why does this saying not refer
to the "Sign of Enoch"? 111!
According to Z<lle~ the point of Q 11.29-30 is that Jonah, like the Son
of man> wots rescued from death {and this is depic:ted in some sourc:.es as an
120. Xloppenhorg. fOtmrttion. U2; so al100 Tuckt:n, Q 11nd tJu History, p. 26 L The
corrdatives in Q also ap~.ar to have differt11t empb~ t;ee H.f. Sayer. jc1us' Predktiom
o{Vindic.:Jt;on anJ Restm8cMn (WtJN'T, 1120; Jubingm: Mohr Sicbcck> 1986), p. 123.
12\. Z.ll<; 'E.nullckung', p. 521; cf. Schul?, Sp""""'"'lk, pp. 254-56, •nd j acobian,
First Gosp81, p. 16S, who argues that cbe sign of Jonah ts punitive for 'thi~> generation' bur
doe& nc>t legjtim.ate jesus; it only signifie3 the elld.
t22. 2<11<; 'Entrikk-·, p. 524.
1.23. Zdk-r. 'F.ntr\iock-ung'• p. 524.
146 Post-Monem Vmdicotion of jesus in the Sa)ings Gospel Q
assumption~ in order to come to the Nincvites as one t hereby authorized by

God. This rescue from death is depicted in some. sources as an assumption:
Jon. 2.7 MT describes it as an ascent (using ;;?.u as in 2 Kgs 2.1), as does
Jon. 2 .7 LXX (all<l~r\TC.:> 4>8opix ~c.>iis ~oo). Later Jewish traditions identified
Jonah wirh rbe son of the widow of Zarephath raised by Elijah (1 Kgs
17.1 7-24) and/or held thar he entered rhe Garden of Eden alive (Midr. Ps.
26.7; compare D.,., Er. Zut. 1). These ore helpfu l observations ..pecially in
light of the poosibility that Q 13.35 used assumprion language in relarion
to Jesus' post·morcem vindication. But Jonah is not depicted as a n escha-
tological figure of judgment as is the Son of man or Coming One of Q:
'Jonah's preaching was intended to aven judgment; the Son of man will bring
judgment. ' 114 Both jesus and Jonah announced j udgment, but thi$ does not
suffice for Zeller's reading of Q 11.29-30, since be takes the future verbs
eschatologically.m
Although the grounds arc slim for ar guing that cscharological function
is whar connects Jonah and the Son of man in Q 11-29-30, Zeller's work
with this saying pro>; des some helpful insights; first, he correctly notes thar
tile sign of Jonah is the Son of man, as opposed to some sign given by him;
second, ZeUer is correct thac the saying is form ulated as an announcement
of judgment, though this need not require that the fu ture verbs be taken
esc::hatologically. A useful way forward is ro investigate points of similaricy
between Q's view o f Jesus and uaditions about Jonah, 114 while allowing
that the comparison may be multivalent. Three points of similariry will be
discus5<d here: botll Jonah and rhe Jesus of Q announce judgment, which
provokes repentance; both see the positive response of Gentiles; and both
experienced rcscue(s) from death.
1. Judgment Proclamation and Repentanc~
Most discussions of Q 11.29·30 focus o n Q 11.32 as a clue to its iorcr-

pretation: the Ninevites: repented at the proclamation of Jonah, and they
will rise to condemn ~this generation, ar the judgment because 'something
grea ter than Jonah is hc.c'. Though Q 11.31-32 are sometimes considered
a subsequenr addition to the saying, 127 even so they clarify how the saying
was understood at least by the redotctoL The 'proclamation of Jonah' is
raised explicitly, and the responses of the Ninevites and ~this generation~ a.re
conuaSted. This is the basi! of readings that take repentance proclamation
as the point of comparison in Q 11.29·30. 1U Neither Joo.-.b nor tbe jesus
124. TUckett. Q and tlk Hjjrory, p. 263.

U.S. Set tbe ob~s rai.scd by Tudu:n, Q andY,~ History, pp. 263-64 n. 86.
126. for~ d<uiled di~c:ussion o( joo.ah in jewh h traditions.~ Oaow. Sign of ]Oft4b
Rt&MSi<lett'd, pp. l?.-..4.
127. S.. C.atcbpol<, Q><e<t, p. 24<.
128. Fledderm~.nn. who $CCII the unit u a $iogie composition. takn this re-a ding
( Rc~it>Jt tmd Commmtary, p. SJll.
5;1f"i{iCilnco of A.,wnprion in Q IJ.H-35 147
of Q actually preach repentance; rather, both preach judgment. In both

cases the hearers must infer that rcpc:orancc is the appropriate rcsponie.
Jonah's message in Nineveh was simply, •forty days more, and Nint\'tb
shall be overthrown' Uon. 3.4). Other Jewish JOUrttS sugg<&t likewise thar
his message was only about the coming dc5ltuction of Nineveh Uos. Ant.
9.2 14; de )ono 103-04; Li•. Proph. J0.3).ut Similarly, in Q, }<&us docs
little outright repentance preochina.'" On the other hand, a good deal of
the sayings material directed (ostc:nJibly, at lean} to oursiders rakes the
form either of woes or of judgment sayings, as in Q 11.29·30. This is not
to suggest. however. that the rcpc:nr2nc:c: of 'this generation' (how"e.r th~
opponents •~ crtviu&cd) was not desired; as outlined above.. the use of the
dcutc.ronomisric thcma of the reieajon and m~Udcr of propbrts in Q was
probably intended to provoke repentance.
Jonah and Q's Jesus both foretell the desuuaion of ciri<& Ucruulem
and Nineveh). But in the U.... of the Prophet>, Jonah also fo rctc:lls the
desuomon of ]erusakm:
And M pY~ a ponenc (Tipot) cooccrnina jctw;ah:m :and tbt whole land, tb.at
whenever lhcy should trc: 1 s:rooe cryinJ OQt pi•.coutly the cOd was tt band. And
whenever they Jboukl Me aU the Grntikt in jeN.Jalcm, the tMirt city would be raud
to rho: sround. jLil< Prop.~~. 10.10- 111 1"
A similar uadition also ap~au in the proem to l.Amtn.tatlons R4bbab. uz

Acc:ording tO G. Schmin, tbit is the common ground prc.tumed by the 'Sign o(
Jonah' saying: bmh gave an oracle aga_insr jc.tusalem.uJ This is an intriguing
poosibiliry, but Q 11.29-30 require$ an interpretation in which the 'sign of
Jonah' is the propher a11ign .
2. The Piety and R"1>ml4••• of Gtmtiles
Q 11 .31-32 draws atlcmion to the fact that C.ntiles responded favourably

to God beeause of the prodamarion o f Jonah and Jesus. Ae<:ording t o jon.
3.10, God saw how the Ninevites ha.d 'turned rrorn their wicked ways', so
Til.._,
t29. for 0. / - . ,.. F.
~&;~ina
S~<rt, Drn IH/Imur;r<h-;lldiu:b< Pr•d;,... (WIJNT, 10;
Mobt Sieb«k, 1980): in Llv, Pro. IO.J. Jonah cocnpWOJ that h~ prophecy
N'lf)(:'Vc:h wu f,lse.
130. Repuu.a.na vocabu!•ry (~ncrii'Olw. urTG\1010) oc:a&r..ll onlylo Q 3.8j 10.13, and
1l.Jl (the lartc:r cwo ~Ins r.h.n Getlt•art would have re,;pooded tO}etut' prod.a.mation
appropri.attly, that is. by ftpenti:fl&•·
131. D. Harr (tnJU.). •The Uva of the- Prophctt', OTP. pp. l.l79-t9; Greek tat
&om C.C. r....,., n.. ,_, of 11>< ""'p/H<J: Grtd Tal .-1 T...,.t.rt;o. (S!l.MS. 1;
Pbibddpt.;s, Soci«r of Biblical U1<rttw<. t9<6).
132. KJowa>boo1, - - · p. 13J.
133. G. Sduottt, ·n., Zdcbeo c1cs jona", ZN'II! " (1,11, pp. llJ-U. Sduottt dUrlb
Q rri<n 10 J-h\ ...... ,...... jmlfokm.
148 Post-Mortem Vindiaztion of jeSJ4• in the Sayings Gospel Q
he 'repenced' from the catastrophe Jonah announced. Jonah does not react
happily to this change of hean on God's part, however Uonah 4; Liv. Proph.
10.2-3; de fona 157-96). Neverthele,., the central message of the book of
Jon;th, and a theme refiected in early exegesis and rcwcitings of the story,
is that God's mercy extends to both jew and non·Jew. The same message is
also present in Q. Concerning the centurion, jesus says, 'I tell you. not even
in lHael have I found such faith' (Q 7.9). Q 10.13· 14 raises Tyee and Sidon
as a positive (though hypothetical) example of how Gentiles would hav<
repented had they witnessed the 'wonders performtd' in the Galilaean towns.
Q 13.28-29 fores<es the inclusion of Gentiles and the exclusion of jews from
the kingdom. 13• The theme of the positive response of Gentiles in Q seems
intended tO inspire the rtpentance of Jewish hearers of Q's message, hecaust-
the textS which introduce this theme consistently do $0 by way of contrast
with rhe non ~ response. of the j ewish he-arers. Along similar Unes, •early
jewish exegesis ... inter-preted Nineveh's repentance as an Unheilszeichen
for Israel~ . 13'
3. Rescue from Death?
l.n his study of the Sign of Jonah saying, Simon Chow argues thar 'there
are reasons to assume that the s ign of Jonah in Q refers to jes-us' death
and res-urrection, which is taken as a confirmation of his messiahship and a
judgment on his opponents•.1J' The •reasons' Chow gives are Jewish tradi·
tions tbat focused on Jonah's <scape from the 'fish' as divine rescue from
Sheol (Jon. 2.2; Tg. Neo{. Deut. 30.12· 13; tk fo114 71, 99), or even as a
sign of regeneration (de jona .95), accordjng to which Jonah's rescue from
death prefigures the spiritual regeneration o f the Ninevires (de Jona '184}.u 7
Jonah was also widely identified, in Jatcr jewish sources., with the widow-'s
son raised by Elijah (1 Kgs 17.17·24).'" It is impo.<Sible to know how widely
such traditions about Jonah were disseminated. howcvr;r, ;~nd whether they
were; known tO the tradents of Q 11.29·30. Despite: these traditions. Chow
aJso admits rhat 'the resurrectjon of Jesus is nor found in the proclamarion of
Q. The Son of man and the resurrection of jesus arc never connected.•u'
Jonah would ha~e bee-n widely considered to have been rc:Scued from
death (at Jcast once, and possibly twice). In addition. if Q understood Jesus'
134. For the vitw that rht- 'many' who come from East and Wtsr are diupo~ Jew*' 3C!t:
H<lt1ley, •Social Conflta-', p . .18, aod A1li$0n.,]~~r$N$ TrtW.itiott, pp. 176---9l.
IJJ. KJopp:nborg, Form4tion, p. 133 (rcfexring ro lAm. R..ab. Proem 31; M•k . Pi:s:ba
1.80-2, 103·0S, 112·13; y. S.nh. u .s 2a).
t.U. Chow, Sip of jo_ f'Uih R.l.consid#'"d, p. 163.
137. daow, Sign ofJonah Rt«)"sidnetl, p. 36.
138. Uv. P,oph. 10.2-6,; c.,., &b. 98.11; Midr. Ps. 26.7; Pirqe R. El. 33.
139. Chow, Sip oflonab Re.cotU~t:d, p. 163.ln 1he end Cbow takes Q 11.29·30 to
refer to Jesus the S<Jn of t.nan. whose arrival is: tbe sign of destruction (pp. 167- 74).
Significance of Assumption in Q 13.34·35 149
post· mortem vindication in terms of assumption, this also may be helpful for
understanding Q 11.29·30, e.specially given traditions that de$Cribejonah's
rescue as an a.~sumption. Howc.,·er, it would be wise nm to press this point
too far and sugge.sr~ as Zeller did, that ·Son of man' here refers to jesu~ who
was remo ..·ed b)' assumption and who wHI return as judge. Furthermore,
seeing rescue from death as a singular tert.i um comparationis founders on
the fact that the Ninevites were not witnesses to Jonah's rescue from the fish,
so that it is unclt'.tt how jc ;ah's rescue from death would be a sign Jo the
Ninevites IQ 11.30). 1. . Almough the Q communiry may have understood
Jesus as haqing been rescued from death, and air hough the rcfc:rencc to Jonah
in Q 11.29-30 may have evoked images o f the prophet's experience with the
fish., the wording of the saying itself excludes exclude$ this interpretation.
Implications.
The te$U}rs of the investigations in this chapter rnay now be s ummariz.ed

briefly. First_, and most significant, Q contains two parables about an absent
and returning master (Q 12.42-46; 19 passim), both comextually proximate
with materia l about a suddenly rerurning Son of man (12.39·40; 17.23-
37}. This is consistent with the absence or invisibiliry normally associated
to assumption in Hellenistic literature, and a lso of the eschatological role
usually associated wirh assumption in Jewish writings. The final shape of this
material probably results from the same redactional effort which composed
the Jerusalem Lament {13.34-35). This provides some circumstantiaJ e\'idence
in support of the m01in thesis.
Second, Q consjders jesus the (non-earthly) Son of man as the paradigm
or locus of community hopts of heavenly or eschatolvgical vindication muth
the same way as some post-biblical jewish writings connected community
hopes w exalted figures. The hope of corporate vind ication and exaltation,
which in Q is based upon allegiance ro jesus the Son of man (Q 12.8·9;
22.28, 30; 6.22·23), would not make sense apan from some kind of strategy
in Q for undersrandingJesus' own vindication and exaltarjon. The Wisdom
of Solomon and the Similitudes of Enoch connect the representative futlction
of the 'righteous one• and 'that Son o£ man' with assumption (variously
understood), hut that might not be in view in Q~ ahhough - in the absenct
of dear evidena- of a re:surrection..-exaJrarion schema - it could bt pos-ited
tentatively tflat an assumption-exaltation schema was how the trndents of
Q thought Jesus the earthly Son of man became the heavenly Son of man
(as in Q 12.8-9).
Finally, though the comparison between Jonah and the Son of man in Q
11.29-30 might have evoked ideas about reseue from death, Zeller'$ view
that the s.aying has in view the as$umption and c$Chatologkal function of
140. K\oppcnbotg, Formdlion, pp. 131-32; Tuckett, Q ~~nd t~ fll'#<ry, p. 264 n. 86.
ISO Post-Mortem Vindication of]e>us in the Sayings Gospel Q
both Jonah and jesus the Son of man dCM:s nor have strong warranc in the
text, especially given the emphasis on rhe announcement (not the exec.ution)
of judgment by Jonah and J .. U$ in Q.
Chapter 6
T HE AsSUMPTION OF jesus IN Q AND EARLY CHRISTIANITY
Ex-altation Without R.e.su"ection?
'Resurrection' is che usual New Testament caregory for undersrandlng Jesus'

post--monem vindication, but some NT materials refer ro jesus' death and
exaltation without explicitly mentioning the resurrection. Not always is
it appropriate to conclude that 'resurrection' (or. conversely, $Orne other
cat-egory, .suth as 'assumption') is presumed but not stated. For instance, rhe
pre· Pauline hymn rhar appears in Phil. 2.6·11 moves direcd y from death ro
exaltation:
ETotnlvc.:.osv i auTOv ytubpcvos V~ICOOS' lllxpt eau6Tou, eauOTO\J se

oTaupoU. OtO Kal 0 OtOs miTOv \nnpUI.JK.oo&Y •..
... he humbled himself, becoming obedient unto dearh, the death o f the
cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him .... (vv. 8·9)
For Paul the resurrection is the means of Christ's exalrarion (Rom. 8.34),
but some have presumed a similar view for the original context of the hymn.
Ernst Lohmc:ye~. for inst;;~nce, saw here a primitive, non-Pauline way of
interpreting rhe 'facr' of the resurrection. 1 On the other hand. Georgi noticed
that resurrection language is lacking and posited assumption as the mode of
exaltation implied in the pre~ Pauline: hymn - even proposing that the idea of
assumprion was not just a •supplement' to the idea of resurrection, but was
the 'oldest christologkal uadition'.2 Yet, as Lohfink pointed out, rhere is no
textual clue tO support the view that 'assumption'lies behind the 'exaltation·
language of th< hymn.' Although it is cltM how Paul would ha•t read the
hymn., in its original context it may have taken resurrection, assumption, or
1. E, Lobmeyd', K)'rios je.Jti.S: £;tw UtUnsudnmg ~ Pb;l. 2~5 ·11 (Darmstadt:

Wi-altUch< Bucbge><UJ<Mit, 2nd «<n, 19611, p. 49; see al.o R.P. Ma~n, A HY""'
of Chris'" Pbilippian.s 2:5·11 in R~.cmt /~011 & ;, tlw &tting of Emly Christian
Vlor$bip (Downers Grove, JL: lnterVauity, 3rd edrt. 199?), p. 239.
2. Georgi, 'VotpaulinillCht Hymnus'~ p. 292 (author's translation]; Georsi thousftt
Wisdom 2....$ waa the inspinn:ion for che hymn.
3. Lobfink. Hi..,.../falm, pp. 85 o. 12, 97 n. 4<>.
some ocher category as the basis for Jesus' exaltation, or it may simply have
a-ssumed t hat Jesus• obedienc death was the basis of h.i$ exaltation by God.
In any case, rhere is no real warrant for positing cirhe·r assumption or resur~
recdon as the mode of vindication lurking in the-subtext of the hymn.
Similarly, r~surrec.tion language is not found in tbe letter tO the Hebrews,
where at rimes t he author moves right from Jesus' death co his exaltation
(Heb. LJ; 2.9). The final doxology contains an inreresring formulation:
0 &uayayilv EK wKpc:lv tbv rrotJ.tiva Tc:lv rr~O:Tc.JV T0v ~tyov iv oi..,o.Tt

6ta&~Kf\S aiwvlou, tb\1 KVptov ~\.tc:Ov' l11aoUv ...
the one who brought up from the dead the great shepherd of the sheep in
the blood of the eternal eovenanr, our l ord Jesus---· (Heb. 13.20)
The verb OvO:yw suggests assumption, buc 1nore likely allude-s to Isa. 63.1_1 .4
Harold Attridge thinks sta ndard resurrection language (iyilpw, Ovlonu.u) is
being delibetattly a¥oided here, given that Hebrews tends towards. 'langu.age
of cxa ltottion not resurrection for the act whereby jesus' sacrifice is consum-
mated and he himself ... perfecre.d"''.s
Also worth noting is 1 Tim. 3.16, long recognized as an early hymn.
Although none of its six line-s refcr.s to resurrection explicitly, assumption
language doe$ occur:
·os £<j>avrpc.\&q iv oap•i,

iOII(atOO&n iv rrvitl~aTl,
.:>¢e~ ayyil-o,, ,
iKT}pti}(9f') 6v l8VfOIV,
i--TT1CITEU8J) iv K6olJ-~,
O.vrM~<l>&r! iv OOI;n.
Who was revealed in flesh,
vindicated in spirit,
a ppeared to angels,
proclaimed among the Gt-ntiles,
believed in the world,
mken up in glory.
This. hymnic piec-e has generated a great de~ ) of sc::holarly discussion,

foc::uscd particularly on irs struccure and the meaning a nd inter-relatedtltSS-
of lhe six lines.' Many scholars see a reference ro the tes-urrection lurking in
4. H.W. Attridge, The Epistle to tht! Hcbr4:ws: A. Comttlt'tt.l4ry on tlu £p;stk UJ th'
Hebrnus (Hermenci2; PhjJaddph.ia: Forness. l 989), p. 406.
5. Atttidse. Htlwn.vs. p. 406, polnrlng to similar bf\S~&e in Heb. 2.\0.
6. See W.O. MOI.lllCC. Past()Tal Epi#tu (WBC, 46; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000),
pp. 212- 18,224-32.
11,. Assumption of Jesus in Q and Early Christianity 153
icSIKGI~fnl ev nvtU~o-"Tt, along Hnes similar t(,) Rom. 1.4.7Although c.l¢.8tl is

an important tt.rm in the resurrection appearance traditions (1 Cor. 15.5-8;
Lk.. 24.34), most hesitate co see a reference to the rcsurrecdon of jesu$ in
the third line, because of ayyi~OI S.' Finally, many think aut~!\~~ iu oo~o
refers to the (Lukan} ascension, but Lobfink, understanding I. 2 in terms of
Christ's •t.xaltation•, thinks l. 6 refers to the same •as an event of the heavenly
world' and thus out of the sight of the disciples' II so, I Tim. 3 .16 uses
assumption language, but not res u_rrec::rion language, to express a belief in
jesus' exaltation. However, this is not the place co solve exegetical problems
assoc:iatcd with this text and with ochers which suggest that early Christhms
could ralk about jesus' exaltation without explicitly engaging the category of
'resurrection', and sometimes ln such a way as ro sugg~t- t() some scholars
ac least - that 'assumption' was in tbe backg.round.J 0
Working a long such lines, some earlier scholars tried to show that
'assumpcion' as a mode o f expressing or visualizing Je.s us' posr~mortem
vindication was contemporary with, or even {c;hronologically a nd theologi-
cally) prior co, 'resurrtction•. Elias Bickermann, for instance, in ·1 924 argued
th~t Mk J6.1-8 ha.s its bolSis in an early tradition about jesus• assumption
from the grave, which originated in the 'Urgemeinde' and which was
q uiddy suppJant~d by the dominant rcsucrection theology of the Hclltnis-tlc
Chr istians.U The dominanc feature of Mk 16.1-8 is the absence of jesus 1
body, rather than an appearance of the risen Jesus. For Mark and the other
evangelis-ts, the empty tomb signified resurrection~ but because Mark's story
-whatever its origin or pre-history - has formal similarities with Hellenistic
.assumption narratives, it deserves c.ardul considcrar.ion as a possible parallel
to the belief in Jesus' ;~ssumption in Q as argued here.
7. Mounce, Pastoral f:pistlt'S, pp. 217-28.

8. Mounoe thinks l. 3 is in parallel with L 6 (opting for a fWC)"$tanr• structure) and
thus rt2cb the 'ascension' into~ Oyyi>.o1~ (PaSIMal Epist/L-$, p. 229); l.T. johnson, 1'be
Mrst and StroM Leut-rs to Timotlry: A Ne:w TrRnSiction witb I:ntroductio" ~trW Com~mary
(AB, 35A; N~w York: Doubleday, 2001}, pp. 233-34, ulce$ iryyi>.o1s a$ ce(etting ro tbe
apostles (;u in 1 Cor. 15.5-8).
9. Lobfink, Himlf'Ull{ahrt. p . 89 (author•, cnnsbrioo~ so tlt;c> Zwi.e-p, As~iQn, p.
142.
10. A.lso to be nored is Act$ 7..SS-S6 !Stephen's vision of the Son of man), which movtll
djuxdy &om a deutcronomisdc interpretation ofJesus' death to his •standing~ as Son of man
at the right haod of God. J. jertmia& thought ActS 7•.56, al~>ng with U.. 1:2.69, pre&Upposes
'tlut rM m:tniftsu.rion of~ glory o( d'e Son o( man con$i$t$ in b.is a.ssump(ion to Cod
(cf. Etb. Enocb 11 )': Jertmias, New Tutatmnt Tluology {trans. J. bowden; NTl.; London:
SCM, 1971 ), p. 273. 1ht ttadirion.al origin of the vision is uncertain, .and within the: chris-
cological framework. of luke-Acts the vision presuppo&CS tc:su.ct«t.ion and aKmSio11o. F.or
littrarure ud discussion, $tt C. Focaot. •J)u fi.ls de !'Homme assis (Lc 22,69) au Fils ck
I'Homme debout tAc 7,56): Enkux theolosique d littCraire d'1.1n chan:gan.tnt ~antique•,
inj. Vetbeyd('o (ed.•, Tbe Un;ry ofWt· Ads (B£'0.., 1_.2; Lnn-cn: Lcuw:n Uoiv('tsity Pt('$$
aod P..,• .., 1999), pp. 563-76.
11. 8icbnnann, 'Das l«rc Grab'. pp. 290, 29'2; see also Hauk, 'l!.ntrUckoog uod
eteba.tolot,:tische Funktion', p. 113.
!54 Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
In !927 Georg Bertram argued that a belief in jesus' immedia<e ascension
from <he cross (as in Gos. Pet. 5.19) was the origin of more developed beliefs
suc:h. as resurrection? assumption from the grave, and poSt·resuaecrion
a&eension. 12 Traces of this view, argu~d Bertram, are stili evident in some
New TC$tament writings, particularly in those textS which move directly from
Jesus' death to !tis exaltation, such as Phil. 2.8-9 and Heb. 1.3. Howeve~
these texts refer not to ascension or assumption but simply to exaltation. u
Othen which mlght be taken to deKribe an assu.mptioo of jt"sus from the
ctOSS are fairly late, and actually, as will be obstrved below, narrate either the
assumption of Jesus' soul (Gos. Pet. 5.19; Mk 16.4 in Codex Bobbiensis) or
a temporary journey, possibly bodily, from the cro•• (AciS of fohn 97- 102;
QU<!s. Barth. 1.6·7).
llamabas Lindars also sought the origin of resurrection belief in the idea of
•exaharion•. which be thought could havt originatt-d 'without the txperitnce
of the resurrection as an hi$torical event•, since it was possible: for 'tbc: death
of a supremely righteous man Ito) be imerprtted as the uansirion from
earthly life to a position in hcavc:n appropriate to God•s designated agent of
the judgment'." But C.F. Evons rightly pointed out that
'J'bt' question is wbdhtt death~x.a.harion was ~ l war- .simply a rynonytn foe. or a.n
cxtcn.sioo to its furtbet~t point of death-resurrection, or wu a parallel, independent
and aht:n'}ati\'t conceptiotl in ic:s owo ri3ht. The que'$riOn could aJso be raised
whether 1r was not in cenain respects the prior conception in being responsibl~t, in ~
way the resurrection by jt$Cif i.$ 00( likely 10 have been, (or the belief in dle irnmineru:
return of rhe exalted Lord .... u
Thjs is an importam point, directly applicable to Q, which •jumps immedi·

arc:ly to jesus• re:rurn as the Son of mao'. 16 But Evans also grasped the
difficulcies inherent in attempdng to construct a developmental model
with 'exaltation• or 'assumption• and 'resurrection' as points on the same
trajectory, as Bickermann~ Bercram, and Georgi did DOL 11 A more cautious
approach is to argue tbat, in certain circles, a-ssumption cou1d have seemed
more theologically appropriate than resurrec.cion, whether or not knowledge
o f resurrection traditions can be determined for such groups. But it will be
illustrative to investigate, albeit briefly, other texts that could support the
view that other circles besides the one represeme.d by Q could conceptualize
jesus• post-mortem vindication along the lines of assumption. These texts
include {1) writings which seem ro describe an assumption of Jesus from the
cross, (2) Mark's empty tomb story (Mk 16.1-8).
l2. C. Bertram, 'Die Himmdfahn jesu 'f'Om Kreu.z an und der Gbul>e e.n teioe
A u fer.teb ung~, in JU... Schmidt (ed.), Pwg~IH {Mr Adolf~"" vun 60. GebNrtsug
iTYb;ng.., Molu Si<h«k, 1927), pp. 187- 217;"" Zwi<p, ~ p. 7.
13. l..ohme7ez. Kyrio1}n.u, p. •s n. 2.
14. Lindan, 'Apo<alyptic Myth', p. 380.
LS. Enns., Rt~ution tmd tht Nt~J~ Ttstdml"NI. pp. 137- 38.
16. Kk>ppcnbotg, f=watmg Q, p. 378.
17. See ~o Georgi. •vorpa.ulinitc:he Hymnus', p. 2.92..
The Assumption of jesus in Q and Early Christianity 155
An Assumption ofJesus fr()m the Cross?
At least four extr.acanonical tt:xt$ describe an assumption or a &sappearancc:

of jesus from the cross. Though most of them are of~ much later date than
Q, they must be examined here because they use assumption language for
a crucified, though not yet dead, Jesus. Possibly, such later Jegcndary devel-
opments in traditions about the crucifixion would om have occuNed had
there not already ~n in existence the view that tbe post-mortem jesus had
experienced assumption rather than resurrection. Two of ch~ textS, Gos.
Pet. 5.19 and an insertion after Mk 16.4 in the Old Latin, appear to describe
an assumption of Jesus &om the cross. Tbe other rwo, Acts of john 97-102
and Ques. Barth. 1.6-7,describc heavenly journeys, perhaps bodily, from the
cross and back again. Gos. Pet. 5.19, fir>t of all, uses standard assumption
language (the aorist passive O:urA1)¢i&r}) whert~ one would expect ~ reference
to the death of Jesus:
And the Lord cried out saying: My power, {my] power, you have abandoned
me; and having said [this} he was taken up. a
This difficult passage has been much discussed in scholarly literature.'' Our
interest is in the meaning of Ctvr.Xt)4>8n. Docs the unusual cry of dereliction
indicate a docetic or gnostic view according to which the impassible 4Christ1
or 'Word' lc;aves the human Jesus at the moment of death? Or d~s it refer to
an ascenr of the souJ. or simply to jesus' death? Can it refer to an assumption
from the cross?
D.W. Palmer suggested that it •may be taken to denote assumption rather
than death', although he $t:emed to confuse 'assumption' with the naive view
of ' the person depaning from his body at death' .10 Palmer's main source~ the
citation &om the A~umptio MO$is preserved by Clement (Strom. 6.132.2),
refers co soul ascent, nm assumption. The rwo categories did use similar
language, bur they differ in that with assumption per se the body disappears.
Gos. Pet. 5.19 cannot refer to a bodily assumption of jesus, because the text
goes on to desc.r1be. in great detail the removal of the body from the ~ross a.od
18. Crtck tt-Xt from .M.G. Mara (1!<1. and tt:tns.), lwngls. tU Pim-e: Introduction,
texu aitiqw. triUluakm. romnwJ.kl.ire a i'Nhx (SC. 201; Puis: Cerf, 19?3). Harna<:l
emrocled the text to inc)ude the StlOOnd JK1U (not in ~ manUJCtipt): Mara. l.v~ngile de
Pme, p. -t8 n. 19.
19. See Mara, &.tngile de Pi-erre, pp. 132-40; J.W. McCant, 'The_Gospel of Pet«:
De><;ecis:m R«onaidercd', NTS .lO ( 1984), pp. 258-73 (262-67); P.M. Head, 'On the
Chr;.tology ofthd;ospd ofP<tn', VC 46 0,921. pp. 2~H (213- 15).
20. O.W. Palmer, 'Origin. Form, and Putpoet of Mark 16:4 in Codex Bobbicns.is',jTS
27 {19?61, pp. 113-22 (119). Palmer usC$ the •·ord 'na'iYe' to de:Kribe Orip"$ view tNt
Jesus ~panl!d from his body at the rime of bis deatb (Origc:n.. in Midt. 1381.
!56 Post-Mortem Vindicati071 of jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
it$ burial 16.21 ·2~). It seems best to understand avrJ.l)~ here as referring
to soul ascent. Although cXV«AcqJj)cl:VCt> was somedmcs used c:uphemisticall)·
for 'dying>,l 1 it was also commonly used for soul ascenc.u Whatever the
relationship between the Gospel of Ptler and the canonical gospels,2J other
descriptions of the death of Jesus also suggest a departure of jesus• souVspirit
from che body.1" Gos. Pet. 5.19 morrovtr does not suggeit the depanurc
from Jesus o f a dlsti nct spiritual cndcy (whether the 'Christ' or che 'Word').
as apparently certain of Irenacus• opponents believed (see, for example, Haer.
3.16.6; 3.17.4)."
In the Acts of john, the apostle John fl«s from the crucifixion and
rakes refuge o n the Mount of Olives, where Jesus suddenly appears to him
-though his 'departure' from the cr06s is not described- and gives him a
s pecial revelat ion while darkness covered the land (Acu of John 97- 102).
Jesus says, 'J ohn, to the multitude down below in JerusaJem J am being
crucified ... but to you I am speakin~ and pay auention to what I say• (Acts
of john 97). The end of the vision uses assumption language:
When h< had spOken to me these things and Otbcrs which I know not bow ro say
:ts he would h;m: me, he was u lcen up, without ~ny of lhe n'ultirude luving seen
him (<iwM~q ~o~rt&vt>s- o:UtOv &to:oa).lfvou lilv OxM..lv). And wOOl I went down I
laughed t hem all to M"Otn . . .. lt\cts of John 102)l 6
The removal of jesus at the conclusion of the encounter ta kes him back to
rhe cross, a nd the crowd's igno~ nce of Jesus' absence (whether or not the
text supposes he was absenr from the c-ross in body) is arrributcd to their
spiritual blindncss.21
The Questions of Bartholomew, dated on theological grounds to around
the fifth cencury,a describes unambiguously a disappearance of the body of
jesus from t he cross. After the resurrection, Sanholomew says to jesus,
'Lord, wben you went fO be ban&cd on tbe (;fOSS, ( fol1owcd you afar off and saw you
hung upon the ctQ!l'l, and the anRel$ coming down (rom have~:"~ .:and we)f$hipping you.
21. So ROAG. See alw the 'later evidence' cited by Head. •Qlnstology", pp. 2 1<4 and
223 n • ..1.
22. Stt Lob6al<., Him,.,.l(ahrt, pp. 61-69.
23. For a S\II'VCY of recent opini()C). and a$$C$Sttlt:ttts o( tbe evidenr;e, sec A. Kitk,
' Examining Priorities: Another Look at tfM. Gospel of Pc:ter'-s k c:larionship ro W New
Tesumeot <><>•pels', NTS 40 { 19~), pp. 512· 95.
2... Mk 1.S.37; Lk. 23.<46; and especially Mt. 2.7.50 and Jn 19.30 (~v ,.0 lfVWSJo
and nap(&.>.ttv TO tmV\Ja, respectivt-JyJ.
25. Xe Mc.:Ca.o.r.. 'Do«-t.isrn', pp. 262,.,65; cf. Mara, .E.wngik de Pierre, pp. 139-40.
26. l'rans.. EUiott, A.pocrypNJ Net~~ Tt'st4mhll, p-p. 32~21; Creek ttxt from E. Junod
and J.-D. JU.esdi (eds. and ttafl$.). Act.s lohdnnis: T~~ alii - Commt:f'tt#riv; - lttd.ius
lCChr. St'ri.es Apoccyphorum, 2; 2 vols..; Tumhout: Brtpols. 1983), p. 1.215.
27. So Junod and Kaesdi~ Ada lohann.i.s, p.. 2.676'.
28. S« J.-0. Kaesdi and P. Chuix, L'tvangik de Lnhilnny d'apri..s tkux i aits
apocryphu (Turnb<>u" Btepol•, 19931, p. , • •
The Assumption of jtsUs in Q and F..arly Christianity 157
And when thereeamt darkncu, I looked and I sa;w tb.lt you vanished away from the
cross (c160v Of O:+avq yty¢lo'OTQ: a.o TOU OTaupoU), <lind I beard only 3 voice in the
put:s wtder the e:a.rth, and gte<~t waillng and gnashing ()f teeth a.U of a suddtn. TeU
me, Lord. wbc::re did you go tO from the c;rO$$?' (Quts. Banh. 1.6·7f'
jesus answers that he left r.he cross in order to bring Adam and the patti~rchs
up from Hades (1.8-9). Alter this otherworldly journey, j esus rerurns to the
cross, still under cover of darkness (1.20). Apparently all these t hings were
vi$ible only to Bartholomew. As in t he Acts o( john, j esus makes a temporary
depanure, perceprible only to a chosen disciple, from the: Crt)$s, under cover
of dMkness. 30
Alchough Quu . Barth. 1.7 does not describe an assumption, it prdenrs
a combination of motifs - a bodily disappearar)Ct of jesus from the cross,
during the t ime of universal darkness, accompanied by an angelic escort -
similar ro that found in another sou ret, 41n interpolation a her Mk 16.3 in the
O ld Latin Codex Bobbiensis (k). Jn D. W. Palmer's opinion., the interpolation
•seerns to be an acxount of the assumption of jesus from the cross, which
was transposed to irs present position at rhe time- o f the Latin translation
of Mark, in order tO give the impression of a visible. resurrection from the
tomb'.J t Palmer reproduced the text of Bobbiensis opposite the Greek text
o f Mk 16.2-4 as shown in Table 6. 1 below.»
Table 6.1: Mk 16.2-4 in Codex 1\obbiensis and in Creek
Mk 16.~. C<lcfu Bobbi~mi• Mi. 16.2.·4
1 ct •u~erue.~ prima tabbflfi m..ue, ~ J:Oi )./«"' npo:.i Tlj 111q. -rW.~c.w{p)!OliT.ibtk ~ lVII«~ tl!li lol'lllllliow.
• S..bi"' auua ..0 hOW\Wl 1mi.am ~ Uci Ucuc
tlll:ill pe1 ICJC.nt orWm tm~c e1 duceMrua dt a~t
an~ n '"'ff'*.u !11. clt.rilttf" Yl'l't ~I; .Z:a1ol tkettd·

crum ~to n 0011tilluo lvx f•n• nt. T~ iUM ~
-~~ ~ moJOrimutNID d Yide111 ~IUD b.pkl(a,. fuil; • ,,.; 611<4!Uof10cJI:u 8t.~o 11 ;n, O;,..n..V)ovtOI 0
cnlm 1!1118*111 lll.fl'lis. ).j~ · ~" ~ '"')'0'~ 0~
29. Trans. Elliott, Apocryphal Ntw Tmammt, p. 655; Greek ttlt'l from A. WiJmsrt
Uld f.:. T~t, 'FragmentS Grec$ ec l.atins de l'tvansile de: Bartbekmy', RIJ 10 (1913),
pp. 161-90, 321-08 1183).
JO. On poi.nts of(()nW;t bct'¥i·ceo the Question~ o(BftTfholon~ and the: A<U: oflolm~
«<J.-D.IUaestli, 'Oil m est l"erude cl<: 1--£vangile cl<: S.rthelemy•?•, RB 9S (1988), pp. 5-33
125-27).
31. Palmer, 'Mark 1'.4', p. 122. Stt also Lohfink, HitFinwi(Mm. 128- 29; Parsons.
[Rp~~rtu'~'? 146-47; ZwitP. Asun.s•'o n, 190. Neither Parsot'l$ nor Zw~ refer ro Palmtr's
anidc.
32. 'The Utin ~~t bere is cjred ftoro A. j Uiicbtt (td.), Jtala: Das ~e Tat~;.,
.ULMI,.;w,., rJ!J<,U.fn>mg. II. M"'""""""K•Iium (Berlin: cl<: Cruyu~ J 9.0).
.U. Pal~t emendtd the text to •surg-tbant' h~ ('Matk 16.4', pp. 114-15).
!58 Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
Palmtr suggest~d several reasons why t he interpolation was not originally

composed for its present context. Flrst, rhe rime deS<;ription ('ad horam
tertium'} ts not consistent with a dawn visit tO t he romb. The omission, unique
to Bobbiensis in the Old latin,3~ of something corresponding to O:uani
).a\ITO) TOO tiJuoU (Mk 16.2} is unusual, and given the time discrepancy,
Palmer said that 'it is hard to believe that the omiss-ion is accidental'.35
Second, the rde.rence to uni\•ersal darkness fits not the empty tomb but the
crucifixion context (sec Mk 15.33), so •ad rertiam horam' originally referred
to the end of the darkness, and the interpolation's original context was the
crucifixjon.u Palrncr also decided that the original fragmen t extended from
4
ad horam tertiam' to 4 lux facta est', with the rat of the interpolation being
editorial adjustments to make the fragment ht.37 These adjustments explain
wby rhe interpolation does not mention the cross.
What remains., ac(:Ording tO Palmer, is a fragmentary account of eventS
at the crucifixion which bas parallels borh whh other Christian passion
accounrsn and, impOrtantly, with assumption narratives such as the one in
2 En. (A) 67.1-3, where be discerned the same formal pattern: ( I) ooming
of darkness; (2) descent of angels; {3) ascent; (4) return of light. Lohfink
observed that darkness or clouds (which obscured t he actual assumprjon
from view) are sometimes found in Gra~~Roman and Jewish assuroption
narratives ..$!1 As seen above, angelic escort is nor a common modf in
assumption narratives. This motif might have been incorporated into 2
Enoch (A/ 67 because of the influence of soul ascent narratives (such as
T. Abr. (A) 20.10-12; T. Job 52), or because Enoch journeyed with angelic
guides in earlier Enoc:h.ic writings.44
Palmer's observation-s on the nature, ex-tent, and original context of
the interpolation seem weU·founded. The main difficulties with the view
that the interpolation refers to an assumption of jesus from the cross are
(1) the vagueness of the expression asc.endenmt eum eo,0 given rh•u rhe
usual depiction of Jesus• death is as a $Oul ascent, and (2) the fa'-t that
angelic escons are more common in such scenarios than in descriptions of
bodily assumptions. So, his interpretation of the fragment as refcrrlng to
an 4assump-tion' from the cross is open to question. If it was originally a
J.4. Stt JUI.ichec; ltala, 2.157.

3S. Paimcf, 'Mark 16.4', p. liS.
36- P•lmu, 'M•rk 16.4', P- 116.
37. P.hDCt, ' Mark 16.4', PP- liS, 122.
38. Palmer, ' Mllric 16.4•, pp. 117-18 mentiont: an,gelie ~!$COM ( Qu~. Banb. 1.6);
tnnt1 oa:urrios during the three: houn (If datknea.s t-Gos.. l'u. .S.l.S-6.2 1); return o f light
(Go.s. Pet. 6.21-; Did. Apost. S.H).
39. l.ol>fink, Hl""""l{.mt, pp. 44-45, 73,
..0. 1 £,_ 81.5·6 implies tb.tt tbc: '$CYen holy ones• who deposit Eoocb badt at his
bouse will return for b.is final assumption after hts ye:tr o( i.nsuuerion co hd h.mily.
41-. ~c i$ n01 3ltl(ln& the u.u.~ l ver~ for assumption, a-cc;ording to Lohfink
{Hmo..,.l{.mt, pp. 41--421.
The AJSumption of jesus in Q and Early Christitlnity !59
fragment from an account o f the crucifixion, the Bobbiensis interpolation

probably describes not a bodily assumption but the ascent of jesus' souJ,
rwo categodes which Palmer seemed to confuse in his discussion of Gos.
Pet. 5.19."
Mark's 'Empty Tomb' Narrative (Mk 16.1-8)
Mk 16.1 ·8 narrates the d iscovery of t he absence of jesus' body from the

tomb, but describes no a ppearances of the risen jesus. ln several ways this
story is formally similar to ~ssurnption narratives. Most -significant is the
absence of the body: as seen ln Chapter 3 above,, it often took no more than
disappearance for the condusion to be reached that an assumption had taken
place . .Besides, a missing corpse suggests not resunection but a.$$umprion (so
Chariton, Chaer. 3.3). In addition, the absence o f jesus' body is emphasized
typically by a fruitless search (lnoouo~nnln ... oU<EOTto cl.6•, v. 6), and the
missing body is verified by a corroborating witness~ the 'young man'.
Kal iioE.MtoUoa11is TO IJVflpilov ilOov \11ia\.IIOKovJCa&r\~&vov &v Tols &~to'is

o
ncp•ll•ll'-1t~iooo trTOM\V A!v<l\o, <al <;<8o~l'!r\Otloav. o< *rc• oohais, Mt\
ittea~ll•lo&· ' lnooUo ~qnln TOV Na~apn.Ov Too iOTaupw~ivov· Jjyipilr),
oUK i'OTIY ~c· i& 0 TOrros Orrou i&!)K«V rohOv.
And whe-n they entered the-tomb, they saw a young man scared on the
right side, dressed in a white robe, and they were alarmed. And he said
to them, ' Do not be alarmed: you seck jesus the Nazarene, who was
crucified; he has been raised, he is not here; look, there is the place where
they laid him.' (Mk 16.5·6)
His testimony confirms (and inrerprers) the disappea rance, and suc.h rcsti·
monies also figure prominently in Hellenistic assumption narratives, as
Lohfink observed." T he V<aviGKOS here is a young man (see Mk 14.51·52),
probably an ideal .figure who gives the correct interpretation, though other
versions of this story art ltss ambiguous that this is an a ngd. Either way,
both heavenly and earthly figu res authtnticate assumptions in Other s uch
tllles.~ The ~e.ference to an appearance in Galilee (Mk 16.7; compare 14.28)
can be seen in light o f the epiphanie$ which somet imes occur in Helltnistic
assumption stories. A reference to an 'appeouance' is not necessarily
42, Palmer, 'Mark XVI.4', 119-20. lohfink, Himmtl(tlbrt, p. 129, also sugg~ted an
affini:ry betwttn tbe Bobbimsis interpolation aad the (;()S.P<l of P~t~, but for Loh6nk the
similarity COJUi$ts in how both tats coonccr nosurrection and im.mediatt: ascuuion (d. CO$.
Pet. 10.39-40, whidl Lohfink thought narr.ated an ~sion : 1-Ummdfllhrt, p. 117).
43. Loblink, Hi.....l(ahrr, pp. 45--6.
-«. The tendency in cbe s~.tbk:queot redaction o( Mark's story by ocher evangeli$t$ i$
ro ma.lcc W 'young man' more ckarly an angd (or a •b): !Itt Llr:. 2.4.4--Sa; Mr. 28.2-4; Jn
20.12.
160 Post-Mortem Vindication of]WAS in the Sayings Gospel Q
proble-matic to a 'disappearance' story, however; since such epiphanjes were

meant tO confirm t hat an assumption bad taken plaoe;45 The announcement
esp«.ially to Pe<ct of this appearance probably should be taken as Mark's
nod tO t he resurrection appearance traditions as in 1 Cor. 15.5 and Lk.
24.34. 4' But one element of Mark's empty comb srory is not consistent with
assumption narratives: ~y&p81'), 'he has been raised'.
Those who note the formal consistency of Mk 16.1·8 with Hellenistic
a$$umption StOries have tried to explain t}y6p$n in various ways. Bickennann.
who thought resurrection cag only be demonstrated by narrating either the
process of resurrection or an enooumer wjr:h the risen person, argued that Mk
16.1·8, whith describes rleither, 41 must be Mark's redac.rion of a 'primitive
account' ('Urbericbt') about the assumption of jesus from the tomb to fit his
needs." In this 'Urbericht' the empty tomb would have been understood as
a proof of Jesui' assumption, nor resurrecdon.49 Thus l}yip&r] is a Markan
intrusion imo the earlier story, for resmrecrion rheology was a 'given• for
Mark. Since in Bickermann's view early Christian tradition could sometimes
substitute the idea of exaltation - the end result of assumption - for the
idea of resurrection. Mark was not troubled by using this early usumption
account. 5° Bickcrmann s uggested that the assumption story used by Mark
originated in the 'original circle• ('Urgemdnde-'}, a group which be]jeved
that jesus was exalted immediately after his dcath.' 1 ln Bickermann's view,
this understanding of jesus' fate was qukkly overshadowed by resurrec1ion
theology, which was more: at home in the Hellenistic groups which knew of
the dying and rising figures of the mystery religions.n
1S. .Lohfink, Him~Ifohrt, pp. 4~; Sickermann, 'Oas lcere C rab', pp. 29D-9 1;
.so ~ lso R. PeiCh, Das Af.arlttd~Vr:tng<lir~m (HTKNT, 2; 2 v oJ~.; Frc:iburg; Herder. 2nd C'dn,
19801, pp. 2.522, SZS, 53<-lS.
~6. Uro, 'Jcx:su$·liike ja ylllsnOUSt'mua', p. 102.
47. 8ickctmann, ' Das l~:ere Grab', pp. 28'1-82. U ler ad ju.ument$ tO tht end o { Mark
anemptcd to furnish one proof or tbt other: the longer ending (Mk 16.9·20) narrates several
:.ppe:~r:~nces of jesus. :~nd, ~seen above. dle interpolation in Codex Bobbieosis in its context
i.n Mark 16 a~rs to describe a visible resurrection ('Da$ let.re Crab', p. 282).
48. 'DasletK Grab', p. 190. BidetmaM thought this c:onsisteot wirh Mark's metbod
of violmtly i.n~ning 'Paleninian• tradition into t~ fr:unework of his QWn Hell.t:niftie
the<>IQSY. A$ evKient:e o( M.atk't ad<tputtoo of the 'UrberKht', Bickermann noted: U t the
Pfomi~~e of a n appeuat'W< in GaiHee, ~ina: in 8ic,kcrmann's •icw assumption and cpiphanr
do oot go togerber (d . Loh.6nlc., Himmelf(lhrt, pp. 45-46); a.o.d (2) tht cornroand tO the
WOrtk"U, onJr a ~COM«Cjng link' bc:-fwttn fhe U!lwnption :tC<OWll and the :lpptatanot: tr:td.i·
tion11 (Bicktrr:uann, ' Du leert Grab', _p. 289).
49. 'Das l«fe Grab-', pp. 286-87.
SO. 8ickermann adduced lk. 1.33; ActS $ .:31;: J n 3.10; L2..32·34; Pbil. 2..10
(BickermaM, ·ou leae Grab', p. 290).
Sl. Ric:kerm:mn, 'Das lttu G.rab', p. 290.
52. 8iekermann, 'On kc:rt Grab~, p. 292.. For reaobons to Bfekermano'a rhni11, set
Bu.ltm.ann, History, p. 290 n. 3; P. Hof'fm:an.rt, ' Auicutehung j esu Chri$ri INc-~ TCJotameru)..
TR£ 4 (1979), pp. 478-S 13 {499); Pesch. Mar-lru$evangelium, pp. 2.522-27; H . M«klcin,
'M.k 16-,1 ~8 al5 Epilog des M;ar'k\JSC'vangdium5', i.n C. Fcxaru {ed.), The SynoptU: CosjHls;
Source Critj.cism lind tin New Litnary Criticism (BJ:.'"l'l, 110; Lcuvm: Lcuvcn UniYtniry
The Assumption of jesus in Q and Early Christianity 161
Neill Hamilto11 likewise found the empty tomb story at odds with resur•
rection theo)ogy_.u Hamilton argued rhac the empty tomb narrative was
created by Mark primarily in reaction ro traditions of the appc:a(ances of
the risen jesus.s4 He called the empty tomb story 'an anriresuNecrion story',
because 'it avoids displaying the resurrected Jesus·,s.s although he did not
explain the presence of 1\yip&q in Mk 16.5. Mark composed the empty
tomb narrative to focus attention away from the resurrection appearanc-es.
~nd onto the absence of Jesus, i.n order to highlight the Parousia. J\c.<:ording
to Hamilton, Mark's identiJi<arion of john and Elijah (Mk 9.13l means
Elijah hu a second career in john. Elijah's assumption allows the mmsition
between the: two ca.reers.s' By analogy, HamiJron argued that Matk creates
rwo careers for Jesus the Son of man: the 6nt is the ministry of jesus (see
Mk 2. 10; 2.28; 9.12l, and the second an earthly rule beginning after the
Parousia.s' Thus-, 'Mark's special contribution to the esch.atological crisis
aher 70 is his conviction that the resurrected Lord s hould be replaced by a
translated and returning Son of man•, ~nd this explains w hy Mark treated
the-empty comb story.51
More recently, Adela Yarbro Collins has argued that Mark wrote 16.1-8
in order co narrace the resurrection as a disappearance-srory.59 For Collins~
Pres~ and Pteten, 1993 •• pp. 20:9-38 i218-19); G. LUdemann, 'OJ~ R.~SJmution of]rsus:
Hismry. lf.xpemna. Theolon (London: SC.\4, 1994), pp. 119-21; Uro, 'jeesus-liike ja
yJ&nousemus:', pp. 101-02. Interestingly, Hau.fe made no refcrenc:t to Biclcerm.ann. evm
though be was anxious to prove tht: pre5mce of a.s'"umpeion theology particuJarly lo Marie.
('£ntrUcl:utl8 uod $h~tologi»ehe Funktton•, pp. 112- 13).
S3. N.Q. Hamilton, •"Rcslllft'Ction Tradition and t he Composition of Mack', JBL 84
(J96SJ, pp. 415-21•
.54. Hamilton, 'Resucc«tion Traditicm', p. 41?. In Hamihon'$ opinion, ~hat 'the
wome:n did nor til) anyone shows that Mark is- a.polog:izing for :a story whkh no one knew
until h~ crea~ed a nd published it to the chu.rch. The reft~:en ce tt> Peter in 16.7 $hows t.h.u he
is aware of tb~t ttJ:dition o( 1 Cor 15. 3-S ud that be ftt~ he ought to mAke Peter the: 6cst
witness of jesus' rcsuccectioo' (p. 417) .
.SS. Hami.lron, 'Re$urr«1ion Tradition•, p. 420; set: similacty Cr05.ian, 'Empty Tomb',
p. 152.
56. Hamilton, 'Re$urrection Tradition•, p. 420.
57. Hamilton thought that 'Madc.'s inrt:rm in work:iog out eschatology on earth is
$0 strong that be t"Vtn hM ' tb~ty :~.bout fhe ~raphy of ful6Umenr': Gslikc is given
:~..s the location of the Son of m:an's tteood carce.c becauK of the destruction of Jausakm,
and Hamilton went $0 far as to s.ay that Marie: 'created tht Galilean ministry to support his
eoncl~ion', ;appa«qdy not aware of Q'!l intertSt in G.t.liltt as riw:: pla:ot of jesus' ministry
(Hamilton, 'Rc:sw:cect:ioo Tradition•, p. 4l l ),
SB. Hamilton, 'Resun«tion TNidlrion', p. <42.0. For a similer view, .see B.L. ~bd:.,
A Myth of Jnnocena: Mm-.l dnJ cJm•stit.Jtf Ofitim (Philadelphia: fortress, 1988), p. 308:
' Were: a oosmic: Pft:Senu to be inferred {fr(lol the: resurrection ~ppearanccsJ, Lhc: Apocalrptic
coocems fot vindications, judgments, and the evmrual m.tnifntation of 1M kingdom of God
in hwnan social history would be threatened.•
S9. Collins. 8e1ittni"8 of cbt Gospd, pp. t 19-48; see :a~so Collins,. 'Apotheosis and
Resurrection'.
162 Post·Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q
~yip9Jl is not a problem~ because in Mark's understanding, Jesus was resur-

rected; Matk makes use of the narrative patter.' of assumption because it was
•a culturo:IJy defined way for an author living in the first century to narrate-
the resurrection of jesus'.~ Given Mark's understanding of resurrection
anthropology, jesus) resurrection is physical, so the body gone from the
tomb; but bee~use Mark doe$ not narrate an appearance, Collins suggests
that 'the alternative is that Uesusj ascended to heaven immediatelyt." The
affirmation that an individual, Jesus, had been raised from the dead "seemed
quite similar co the claim ... that Enoch had been taken up into heaven and tO
the claims made ... regaz:ding the translation or apotheosis of heroes, rulers,
and emperors'.'! As wic.h Hamilton, the effec.t, or perhaps the purpos~ of
assumption in Mk 16.1-8 is •co place the acc~nt on the absence of Jesu&', an
accent related to the apocalyptic expectation of Mark.•3
To sum up brieRy, Bickerrnann perceived a formal distinction bctw~n
assumption narratives and resurrection narratives, whi-ch led him to think
that Mark was reworking an older t:.n~dition about the assumption o£ jesu,S)
Hamilmn thought Mark's composition of the empty wmb story as an
;usumption narrative: was pOlemically motivated, and that Mark intended
to correct a mistaken emphasis on the resurrection appcaran~s; and Collins
thinks that Mark was simpJy describing jesus· resurrection and immediate
exaltation as an assumption, given t hat tbis was a convenrional way of
telling such ;~s nory. These t hree: correctly distinguish between resurrection
and assumption, for although both categories are used to account for tbc
vindication of Jesus, they envision different 'phenomemt•.f"
Resurrection has more to do with the reversal of death, and assumption~
rypically at least, has to do with preservation in the heavenly realm for a
future eschatological role. If 'resurrection' only rtversc:s death, on il$ own lt
c:annot account directly for jesus' exaltation and etehacologlcal significance
in the same way that assumption can.6S However, it is but a short step from
the-resurrection of Jesus, understood as a sign of divine fa vour and vindi-
cation, to the kind of enthronement theology seen in the allusion to Ps.
110.1 in Rom. 8.34, for instance (see alro Rom. 1.3-4); and a connection
between resurrection and eschatological function can be seen in t Thess.
60. Collins, &ginnUtg of th8 Gm(MI, p. 147.

61. Collins, &gimtingo(t~GO$pel, p. l-46.
62.. Collins,&ginningo{tlk C<npc.f, pp. 146-47.
63. Collin$, ~gJ'mUng of tb, Go~l, p. 1..8.
6-4. Compare Pndt, M.orluueuangt.lium, pp. 2.522-27, who lis.ts sour~ dun ~ribt
the di~ppt:aran«: and tbt nor-finding of bodiet;, ytt consis-tendy ~u~tes nllutnption
.uld rC$wreccion ,.E.nctik:kuog bt.w. Auferwcc;kung') as the bdidis) to which such motifs
point.
6S. See Evans, R•surr~a-iOJt, pp. 137-38~ stt aJso Hauftl 'Entriickung und t:SChatolo-
giscbe Funlction', p. 112: 'Assumption did juuiot co the uniq~ peNOn of j esi.IS and alto 6t
e1.t:ily ioto the esc.:batOiogieal fr;trnewor_k- ol hi$ procla.m•tioo, while tbc prem.~ture resur-
rcecioo of a sing!<: penon before the geot.tal ~rologic~l resurrection olth.e dead $itnply
had no place in tht &amtwork of jtwiah esclutology' (~uth ()f's tt'n•llnion).
The Assumption of }tsus in Q and f.arly Christianity 163
1.9-10. But the fact tha t tC$urrecrion and aS5umption arc different categories
explains why Luke has ustd t hem both." For Luke, the resurrection ~ver~
jesus' wrongful death (Am 2.23·24; 4 .10), and hi• ascenoion <><plains his
culanion (Acts 2.31 ·35) and cschacoiQ8icalsigni6cance (Acts 1.1 1).07
lf resurrection and usumprion are different c.aregorics, the: question
remains why we find them combined in Mk 16.1·8. Bickermann was right
that rc:s-urr«tion theology was a "given· for Mark." Bic.kcnnann also may
have been right that Mark used a pre-existing story about the disappcaranc.
of jesus' body from the tomb, and adapted it by adding his eharattcrinic
resurrection theology. VtrK 7 io almost ccminly Markan, for Jesus gives
prroocly the same m....ge to the Twelve at the Last Supper (<a~ •lmv
li!Jiv;..., Mk 14.28). There arc ground• for seeing both 14.28 and 16.7 as
redactional lnsrttions,. give.n the way they both intcrrupc their immediate
c-onrau." Without v. 7, the waviOkOS shows rhc women the pia« where
jesus' body had been,. and thty fl«, telling no one; rhus, thc:rc is no incon·
sisteney betw«n the explicit command "Tdl' (<ilion, v. 7) and the failure
co cell (JCal oV&vi oU6iv 1l rrov, v. 8).1' The yOWl& man names 'the disciples
and Peter'. a sideways affirmation of the resurrection appearance traditions.
nor only because Peter i.s singled out but also becauoe Mk 16.7 indud<S the
verb ¥aet (compare.:,~, l Cor. JS.S·8; Lit. 24.J4), which is not in Mk
14.28.'1 1n addition, ~ytp8t) in Mk 16.6 and ptTa TO iyopeiivalp• in 14.28
an cJosdy similar, and also are suggesrive of rhc resunection kecygma (iyri
)'lpTat, I Cor. 15.4), If Mark composed the empty tomb story in ordet to
subven tht appearance tradition, u Hamilton and Crossan have argued, 12
66. In the opinion o( van lilborg and Counct, "tht combi.natloo of burial, diaap•
pnnnce and tbt bdief in returrt"Ction is at right angfet co anucher (Ombirutt_ion wh..i(:h pla)'t
an impOrtant role in clau:ical iU\tMluity: namely the obsef'l'ation of th.c: body's diaappt"atance
(btlore or after death) and the be1tef in tiMlmption' {A.Pf>Mranas and Disgppc4ramu,
p. 193). Van 1ilbors and Countt a\10 think 1h11 10 "k the JOUt'C't-<rickaJ quesrion for
tbe Lukan ~ion narrative• it really ro ask whether Luke was the 6nt to combine the
tnlltrtnion tradition and rhe Ulwnption cradit:ion ( .4pt}l4trllM41 anJ Disap~dnSncU. p.
19S n. 8-; cf. Lol\.6nk, Hi"'mtl(odrtt, pp. J I 1-46; Panooa.. /HfNirtun, pp. 140--49; Zwtept
Afc#rsion, pp. l8s-n•.
67. See tohfink, Hlmmtl(.hn. p. 272.; van TIIbotg and Counet. Appe.mnsus and
Di.s.apJN#NNCef, pp. 186-87; d. Zwi~p. As«mNm, pp. 1-47~6.
68. B.iekn-mann., ·ouleett Crab", p. 290. Ste Mk 8.31; 9.9·10; 9.3 1; 10.34: 14.28.
69. So1 lor instance~ L Seheokc, lt~(e.tlltbtutt~~ibtJ/pttf ttttd kcrel (ir4h: eine
traditi<Mqudtkhtlklt. U"r".-."III'Oit Mit 16, 1-8 CSBS, J3; ~tt: Kathol.ischcs
Bibdwefk.. 19&-IJ~ pp. 4l-46o W. Maraen., .MQ.,t the W.~diU~ Shldiu OJI 1he R.aWdtO'If.
Hi#ory of tb. C01JHI IN••hv;llt1 Ab;n(ldon. 190~ pp. 75-41; R.H. S,.in, 'A Shon Nou
on Mark XTV.21 and XVl.T, NT'S 20 (U74 •• pp. 44$-.Sl (44$); H. Pau.lten., '~ft XVI1-i'.
~<>tiT 2l C1910~ pp. ll3-7S CI<J-Sll.
70. S.. Bol...,nn, HISIOry, p. US; C<>llins. ~of lh< Gcnpt/, p. Ill.
71. l..fid<mam, ~~.,..,...._ p. 118, 'Noct that • • 1""
been irucr<od 1>1 Msrt: """
che tradition. buc earlier bowtcdtc' ~ co haYC bccl'l pmctY«i in tht rl!dactioo.' Stt abo
Uro, 'jcaw-bih t• ,..._......, pp. 104-0$.
72. tbn~ikoa., 1\ctwrcaion Trtdicioo.. p. 420; CcolA.n, 'f..miXY Tcmb\ p. JSl.
164 Post-Mortem Vindkation of jesus in''" Sayings Gospel Q
why has he included this reference to the appearances to Peter and the other
disciples?7J It seems more likely that Mark is adapting a pre-Markan story
with the kerygmatic appearance traditions io mind, and if Mark did O()(
narrate any appearances because his source d id not contain any, the empry
tomb srory was from the beginning a disappearance story. On this basis, it
could also be: suggested that JjyipBn, 'he has been raised' (v. 6) is a Marbn
addition meant to bring a disappearance srory io line with Mark~s own resur-
rection theology.
A detailed analysis of Mk 16.1-8 is impossible hece, but mighc bear ouc chis
coojecrure.14 But if it can be argued chat Mark adapts a uadirion about jesus'
assumption from the graveJ then it would appear that the Q <;ommunit)• was
not alone in imagining j esus' post-mortem vindication and exaltation :along
suc.h lines. Such a similarity may even be the result of shared ideas or tradi·
tions. This would mean that rhe claims of some scholars about the origin of
a pre-Markan empty tomb story would have to be re·evaluated. For instance,
LUdemann thinks that 'those who handed down these traditions "'concluded"
from the message (of the kerygma] chac che crucified one had cisen that the
tomb of jesus was em_pt:y. The preseor story is as it were the product of a
conclusion or a postulate'.11 This is possible., except that an 'empry tomb 1
s tory does nor necessarily pre.suppose re.surrtceion faith. Obviously, for
Mark and the otber evangelists the empty tomb signifies the resurrection of
Jesus, but given the c()ntemporary view that the disappearance of a body
signifies assumption, it is possible that an earlier group or groups could have
understood a srory about jesus' empty comb differently- particularly since
assumption/disappearance language was used in Q 13.35.
lt may be, however, that t he- que-s tion of a pre·Markan disappearanct
StOf)' is moo~ because in its present shape: - for which Mark of c.ourse is
responsible- the empry comb narrative still is more like an assumption story
than a resurrection story. Even Mk 16.7 is not entirely out of place here
because, as already mendoned, an epiphany ofcen serves co confirm that an
assumption has taken place. Two options follow: iln;t, tO sugge$1, as Collins
does, chat Mark's narrative in iUJ present form presumes a resurrection but
describes an assumption;7' or second, to suppo$t-, as Bickermann did, that
73. ll\t view th.at ~a& in M.ark 16.7 refers ro a Galib.un Parou11ia is Mtenabk .
Sec, 6rst of all, E. Lohmerer, CaWiio und #-n~sol~m (GOtdngen: Vandcnhotdc &:
Rupttthr, 1936). pp. JQ-11; $t.r alw Ma ~JU~en, Afp,Jc th• £11rmgf:list, pp. 15- 9.5; Hamilton,
' Rtsurrrcrion 'fraditKm•, pp. 4 19- 11. Cf. Stein, 'Made XIV.28 and XVl.T, pp. 446-$2.
14. For bibliosraphy, f<e Me-rklein, 'Epilog·', pp. 233-38. Tbe foUowiog argue
for a pre•Mou:k<~n emprr «Jmb story: Schcnkc, Au{ntUbiJifgff}f'fkiindigung, pp. JO-SS
(~p. pp. 53- 55}; R. .Pnch, (Du SchJuS .kt vorm.atk.inischen PassiOl'I$Beschi(hte tmd ~
Matk'U~geli um$: Mk 15,42-16.8', in M. Sabbe (ed.), L'l"'allgil# ulon Marc: Tradition
~~ ridtzaion (BETL. 34; l.cu\·nt: Leunn Univenity .,rcas and Peeters, 1974), pp. 36J-410;
Mtrk.lein,~ 'Epilos•, pp. 226--33; LUdemann., R~~aion. pp. 111-18. Others .suggest it is
Ma.rkan composition: so Cros.san, 'Empty Tomb', pp. 145-49; Collins, &gJ'n~~ing ()/ t.h.
Gospel, pp. 129-38.
?S. LUdemann, lteiJirrec.tiaff, p. 121.
76. Collins, se,Uming, pp. 145--48.
The Assumption of}e.us in Q and Early Christianity 16S
for Mark the two caregorle$ were not irreconcilable because of their common
emphasis on C-)Caltat.i on.17 The lauer seems more likely, but either way, it is
striking r:hat Mark (or Martc•s sour:ce) and Q- rwo apparently independent
sources - should consider assumption an appropriate way to think about
jesus' posHnortem existence. At this point the observations of Hamilton
and CoiJins, according to which an assumption-related absence of the post·
mortem Jetui is oriented in Mark to the Parousia, apply tO Q as well as tO
Mark. For in both instances. whether Mark chose not to relate r~surrection
appearances or because the limits of his source. material prevented him ftom
doing so, dte result of an a$Sumption-re)ated a-bsence is an emphasis on the
future prc:sc:oce of the assumed jesus in the coming of rhe Son of rnan . This
was evident not only in Q 13.34-35, but al•o in Q 12.39-40 and 12.42-46,
and Q 17 and 19.
Another issue has ro do with the: $0Cio-rc:ligious function of Mark,s empty
tomb story when compared with the appearance traditions as pr~rved in 1
Cor. lS.S-8. This tradition, and Paul's addendum to it, had as one function at
least the legitimation of early Christian authority figures, as Ulric.h Wikkens
a rgued.7' Thi$ is evident from rhe way Paul becomes distracted from the main
issue in the chapter - the question of the general resurrection in relation to
the resurrection of Christ- co a n ongoing concern in his relationship with
the Corinthians, that of his apostolic a uthority (1 Co" 1S.9-tl). This is
apparently not Mark's concern: che reference (probably redactional) co the
appearan~ ro Perer is probably a c.oncession to such legirim.ariog traditions,
but a 'commissioning' of Peter and the disciples is not suggested by Mk
16.7. The only witnesses of the empty tomb are witnesses of his absence, the
terrified women, <tod although che:y are ..commissioned' by the young man,
they do not carry out his command (at least not in the Markan narrative).
A disappearanc~ story would have t\•oked ideas: about Jesos' exaltation and
coming role in che eschatologlcal drama, and the emphasis on the failure of
rhese disciples tO apprehend the myStery of je<u•' pOSt-mortem vindication
would have pressed Matk's readers to examine the authenticity of their own
discipleship, rather than focus on the privileged expeTiences of the early
Christian leaders."'
How would an early re.adtt of Mlc 16.1 ·8 have understood the significance
of an assumption story as the: conclusion of the gospel? Both Hamilton and
77. 8kktrrunn, 'Das &eett Gr:tb', p. 290.

78. U. WikkmsJ 'Oet UrspruQg eke Oberlicfcnmg dct £ncbc:1nungcn deJAu.ftntanden:
Zur tradiriows-gesciUehtlicl:u:n An31yse von 1 Co ts,l·l t ', in W. joesc and ·w. Pannenberg
itds.), l)ognw und Dmlts.trukrtnen (feitscbtift £. Schlink; GOtti.ogc:n: Va.ndt'nhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1963), pp. S6-95i see al110 R. l'e&e.h., 'Zur f.nutchung- des Claubcns ~~ die
Aufustt'bung Jesu', TQ 153 (1973), pp. 101~18, c:&p. 209-18; Pesch, 'Zur EoUtchung
des Claubcnt an die Auferstehung jesu.: Ein ncuc-r Vcrsucb', ffeiburgtr Zeitsdtrift fUr
Ph.'Jowpbil w.J Thtt>logi~ JO {1983J, pp. 73-98; j. Plt"\fnik, 'Paul's Ap~l.i to Hi.s
Damasc.us Experience and 1 Cor JS:S-7: Art' They Legitimations?' Toronto journ41 of
Th~,logy 4 (t988), pp. IOl- 1 1; Wdemann, R~tm~afon, pp. 36-37.
79. See Cros~n, 'f.mpcy Tomb'_,p. 152.
166 Post-Mortem Vindication of)e<us in the Sayings Gospel Q
Collins pointed to the association berween assumption and apOthtosis (or

'heroificatioo') in Graeco-Roman thought.•o- In Peter Bolt's opinion~ such
an association is not appropriate to Mark.'' Moreover, Mark 16.1-8 is not
an as.sumption s-rory: in the first place., assumption is an escape from death,
and jesus has cJearly died in Mark; and in the second place-, assumption in
the Greek view results in apotheosis, and 'according to Mark's presentation,
Jesus has already refused the opportunity of an apotheosis (along t'he more
nO('mal lines), when he came. down from rhe mountain of transfiguration
(Mk 9.2-lJ)•.u However, tO associate assumption only with apotheosis is to
overlook the fact that it could also signify the rerum to the divine realm of
a person of divine origin or Status. As argue-d above., the double significance
of a$sumprion is brought to expression in Chariton, when Chaereas is
confronted with another empty tomb: 'Which of the gods has become my
rival and carried o££ Callirhoe and now keeps her with him, against her will
but compelled by a mightier fate? ..• Or can it be that I had a goddess as my
wife and did not know it, and she was above our human lot? (Chariton, 9
Chaer. 3.3).
The attentive reader of Mark would not have interpreted the ditap•
pearance of jesus' body from the tomb as an apotheosis, but as a return to the
divinity, not only because o f Mark's emphasis on jesus• divine sonship (Mk
1.11; 1.24; 5,7; 9,7; 13,32), but also because of the immediately preceding
narrative. 'Now when the centurion who was standing oppooitc him 5aW that
he breathed his last in this way, he said, "Truly this man was (a/the] son of
God"' (Mk 15.39). As Hamilton suggested then, one motivation for Mark•s
9
U$C of assumption motifs in the empty tomb story may have been 'to s.ltis(y
Graeco-Roman expectations aroused by the Son of God Christology'." Q
may have made a similar connection between the assumption of jesus and
his divine status. This might not be out of the question, pankula.rly given Q's
relatively high christology and the fact that ir uses the ride 'Son of God' for
Jesus (Q 4.3. 9; compare 10.2t..22t. However, jesus• as.sumption appears to
be understood by Q more as a removal to an exalted state in order to await
an eschatological office than a retu.r.n of a divine person to the divine realm
(although tbe idtas are. nQt mutually exdusivc).
Implications
For $Orne New Testament texts, the exaltation of Jesus could be expressed,
or possibly conceptualized, without explicit reference to the resurrection.
80. Hamilton, 'Resurrecrion Tradition', p. 419; Collins, &ginnint ofth~ Gospel, pp.
140-42,
81. P.G. Bolt. ' Mark 16:1·8: The F.mpty Tomb of a Hero?', 1Y,.Bul47 (l9!i'6), pp.
27-37.
82. 8olt, 'Empry Tomb of a H.tto?', p. 37.
83. Hotmilron, 'Rtlllltrtction Tradition\ p. 4l9.
The A.sumptron of jesus in Q and Early Christianity 167
In some of these cases, it is inappropriate to presume either assumption or

resurrection as the c:hristological category implicit in th.c exaltation language.
1-lowever, the failure of the author of He.brews, for instance, to use what had
become traditional language for the resurre'-lion of jesus s hould not be taken
lightly, for it illustrates Utat some authors weu. willing to express their views-
about jesus• post-mortem vindication, exaltation, and ongoing significance
without explicitly engaging the category of (resurrection•. This aUows us to
ask whether resurrection was universalJy a 'given' as the model for under-
&randing the-present and future significance o f jesus.
The texts which describe an "assumption• or 'ascent' of jesus from the
(f()$5 have little to do with his post..morrem exaltation. The strongest piece
of evidence for the currency of the 'assumption' model apan from Q remains
Mark's: empty tomb .story which, regardless of its origin. has clear formal
similarities with Hellenistic disappearance or assumption stories. Even if
the story of the absence of Jetus' body is not pt<· Markan (as there are good
grounds for supposing), Mk 16.1-8 suggests that Q 13.34-35 is not the only
text - nor was the Q group the only early Christian communiry - to connect
Jesus' disappearance {assumption} with his t .x aharion and future esc:hato-
logical role.
CONCLUSION:
RfSURRECJ'JON AND/OR ASSUMPTION - How 'DIFFERENT' IS Q?
Jt has b<en argued herein that Q 13.34-35, the Jerusalem Lament, uses
assumption hmguage to account fo r Jesus' death, 'lindication, and future
eschatological role: 'You will noc see me until [the time. comes when] you
say, " Blessed is the Goming O ne in the name of rhe Lord"' (v. JSb). The
expression ~yo u will not see me' is sintiJar to descriptions of assumption·
related disappearance in Hellenistic a$$umption storict, and fu nctions
synonymously with the more common djsappearance language. ln additionJ
Q 13.3Sb limit> the du.ration of Jc:$us' d i>appeara nce by means of t he 'until'
clause introducing the acclamation from Ps. 117.26 LXX. Thjs connecdon
between djsappea.rance and return is the sam.e as 1hat made in the j ewjsb
traditions about the assumption of cenaln extraordinary individuals.
Q 13.34-35 expresses both the rejection of Jesus (and, implicitly, his
death) in jerusalem and his dh•ine vindication by means of the correlation
bcrv.·~c:n assumption and eschatological function. Q, then, had a stcatc:gy for
dealing wilh rhe death of jesus and the problem of legitimation it C"aused.
That Q knew Je~us tO have died i.s not an insurmountable difficulty: C'.raeco--
Roman traditions were able to describe: post-mortem as.sumprions., and in
the Jewish tradition there seems ro have been a development (as seen in Wis.
2- 5 and T. job 39-40} in t he direction of applying assumption language to
people who had died. Moreover, Zeller's opinion that Q 13.35 bypasses the
deoarh of jesus is nor warranted given rhe deuteronomisric interpretation of
his death. early in thi.s logion. 1
'There: are implicacion.s fo r understotnding the christo logkaJ interests of
the Q redaction. It was argued that Q 13.34-35, with jesus as its s-peaker,
presents an advanced Wisdom chrisrology along the sam~ lines as Q 10.21·
22. In addition, it ap~ars that the jerusalem Lament is the high point of Q's
deuteronomist-ic rheology, since it understands Jerusalem•s rejection of jesus
;~s the f;\llminaring iostan' e of impeniten,e. The result, true to deuteron·
omistic form, is t he abandonment of j erusalem. However, Q 13.3Sb exp1oits
'he typical assodarion between assumption aod eschatological function to
assimilate rhe Wisdom chrisrology in the Lanlent (and prominent elsewhere
in Q) t() the: Son of man christology alw promin~nt in Q.
1. ZeHer. 'Emrik.kung•, p. $29.

Conclusion: How 'Different' is Ql 169
This reading of Q 13.34-35 found .s ome corroboration in Q material

about an absent and returning master and about an uns~n and suddenly
appearing Son of man. Most impOrtantly, Q 12.42-46, as an addition to
the complex which originally concluded with 12.39·40, elucidate-S the
coming of the Son of man by means of the parable of rbc abs.cnt master w ho
returns unannounced to administer judgment and to dispense reward and
punishment. On KJoppcnborg~s compositional profiJc of Q, this redactional
add ition was made. during the same redactional phase d uring whic.h was
included Q 13.J.Af.J5 as an exprC$sion of the divine vindia~tion of jesus'
rejecdon by tbe children of j erusalem. Additionalty, assumption in Q can
explain how, in the absence of resurrection theology, Q '-"arne to view the
non~arthly j esus as the locus (or paradigm) of rhe smeriologjcal hopes of
the community, with the exttlted jesus functioning in much the s.ame way as
exalted representative figures in cenain Jewish writings.
One broader implication may also be reiterated here. However Mark-'s
empry tomb story originared- at the hand of Mark himself, or (more likely)
at some stage of the pre-Marlcan tradition- it appears to presume or e)( press
the same \•iew, since Mark 16.1-8 refers to rhe disappcatance of Jesus• body
without any res\lrrection appearances-. Although earlier s-cholars had been
inclined to reckon assumption as a more primitive expression of Jesus• vindi-
cation and exaltation than rtsurrecrion, it is dif-ficult tO s ubstantiate theories
o( development along a singular trajectory, given the vagaries involved.
Having -s aid that, howeve-r., assumption may ac<:ount for the bdief in jesus'
heavenly exaltation and (especially) future Parousia in a way that cesu_r..
recti on th~ology a lone (that is. without asc:ensi(m or enthronement language:
or imagery) cannot.
1'wo important questions remain, questions that can really only be drawn
our inferentially from this study, and for which conclusive answers are
impos~ible due tO the nature of the textual evidence. The 6rst questic~n is t hit:
can a particular 'prompt' or 'impetus' be isolated for the use of assumption
languag~ in Q 13.35? Taken in one sense, this question is really about the
Q redaction, but taken in another it is about the significance of the disap-
pearance srory in (or behind) Mk 16.1-8 for Q 13.34-35. lr was shown in
Chapter 3 above rhat. in a (cw cascs, tnditions about the assumption of
various .sages appear to have been generated by prior views about rhe escha-
rologjcal importance of those $8ges - because, as Haufe remarked, 'only a
hislorical perron who was rec-eived into the heavenly realm by means of a
bodily a,s swnprion could ceceive a sptocia) eschatological function'. 2 This
m~ans a.ssumption language could have bten included in Q 13.35 to explain~
pOssibly secondarily, why the c.~rthly jesus should be thought of as the
coming Son of man. This possibility cannot be excluded.
But this would not explain - given the absence from Q of language
of Jesus' resurrection and exaltation - why thar particular c:hristological
2. Haufe. 'EntrUckut~g und n<:batoloeische Punktion', p. JOS (author'$ traMlarioo).

170 Post-Mortem Vindication of jesus in the Sa)'ings GosfHll Q
deYelopmeot cx:curred in the 6tst place. On the other baod, the fact that
•absent masttt' parables were redactionaHy associated with coming Son of
man material, an association which is consistent with the assumption motifs
of disappearance/absence and escha[Qiogical rerurn, could suggest rhar
'death- assumption- return' was the 'given' cb.ristological schema, at least at
the later stage(s) in Q's composition. This in turn could suggest that a belief
in jesus' 'assumption' led not only to the redaction of Q 13.34-35 (along
the lines proposed here) and to the redaction o f Q 12.39-46 and Q 17-19,
but also, at a prior level, to the belief that jesus was going to come again as
the Son of man. ll the Q group knew of a pre~Markan tradition or rumour
about an empry tomb or a missing body, a more obvious conclusion to draw
than resurrection would be assumptiotl, a$ Chaereas 3 illustrates. G iven
the currency of ideas connecting assumption with eschatological function it
would then be a short step to thinking about jesu.s 3$ the non·earthly and
coming Son of man., the locus of the community's soreriologicaJ hope and
the paradigm of t heir eschatological vindication. Such a scenario is admit·
tedly conjecrural, and conclusions that focus mainly on literary acriviry have
bener support.
This leads to the second question: how diffetent is Q? On the composi-
tional le:ve)., it is not necessary to suppose either that the-Q group presumed
that jesus had risen from the dead (but did not for whatever reason allow
that to influence the:ir compositional activity), nor conversely that they we~
completely isolated from groups that understood Jesus' ongoing significance
in terms of resurrection. For on th is level, the use of certain linguistic or
t heological manoeuvres is simply that, and it may be tbar assumption
language presented itSelf as a suita ble way to deal with the problem of Jesus•
post-monem vindication in terms of his future eschatological significance.
But then why is it that some early Chrlsrian texts (like the leners of Paul}
attend exclusively tO traditions about the: appearances of the risen Christ,
while others (as argued hete for Q and for Mk 16.1·8) attend exclusively to
jesus' disappearance? Need these textual data have resulted from originally
independent uaditions circulating in isolated groups?
One approach is to 5uggest, as Kloppe:nborg did for a ~salvific' under-
standing of jesust death, that it is more Hkely that the Q group was unaware
of such views rather than that they knew but avoided them.l According co
Kloppenborg, within Q the sayings of jesus (on the one hand) are validated
both by a testing sequence (Q 4) and by presenting him as SfHlaking for/a•
Sophia IQ 7.35; 10.21 ·22),' but 'assumption' in Q does address the problem
of Jesus' death, rhough it cmpha.sites less the meaning of his death (as
saJvific} and more his future eschatological role. Thus 4the conclusion to be
drawn is not that Q was oblivious to the jssues of the de3th aod vindication
3. Kloppenbors, &=ar;•g Q, p. 374.

4. Kfoppcnborg, E..xcavt~ting Q. p. 375.
Conclusion: How 'Different' is Q? 171
of J<Sus but that Q's approach was signi(i"'ntly different from those of Paul
and his imme.dlare predecessors'. 5
Another approach is t3ken by Hurtado, who highlights the christological
'schemas' of various traditionaJ materials in the NT writings (including 1
Thess. 1.9-10; Rom. 1.3-4; and Phil. 2 .6-11) in order to illustrate that 'the
dearh a.scension 5thcma of Q is neither incompatible with the other chris·
4
tological scbemas nor unique to Q~.' The issue of •uniqueness to Q' is quite
be$ide the point, for (as seen in Chapter 6) other scholars than Hurtado have
tried to demonstrate a death-ascension schema in the texts he employs, and
in others as well. The question of 'compatibility' is mooted by Mark, who
combines a text dc:scribing the disappearance of jesus with indications of his
assent to traditions about Jesus' appearances. For Q, applying assumption
language to the problems of Jesus' death and present and future significance
is an approach to those problems that is different from the use of resur-
rection. How fa r Q was in dialogue (or disagreement) with ocher groups or
views. one way or another-, may never be established.
Perhaps the most cautioU-s way forward ls simply to state that cwo early
and divergent tt.xtual cxprc5Sions of what happened to jesus after his d~th
- resurrection and assumption - focus either on his appearances or on his
disappearance. The author of Mark brings these two textual expressions
together inm one narrative: Jesus has disapPf".ared, according to the young
man. and this means r_h at he has been raised and will be seen by his followers
(Mk 16.6 -7). Subsequent narrative developments tend to enhance this
Markan compromise between disappearance and appea_rance, so that Peter,
the primary wimess of the appearing Jesus (I Cor. 15.5; U . 24.34) also
validates tbe empty tomb (Lk. 24.12, 24; J n 20.3-10), but also so that the
primacy witnesses of the disappearing Jesus meet him o utside the tomb (Mr.
28.9-10; Jn 20.14- 18). Howevc~ looking back befo re Mark's gospel, to the
Sayings Gospel Q, we find grounds lor allowing that members of early Jesus
movements cou1d think about his ongoi.ng post-mortem existence: ln rttms
other than resurreccion, and foe considering thar another category - that of
a$Sumption - enter the vocabulary of scholars considering how <:hristologica!
views were expressed at the level of Christian odgios.7
S. Kloppc:nborg. bC4114tircg Q. p. 37:9 (ernphuis orisi.ull.

6. Hwudo, Lord ]..sus Christ, pp. 236-3?.
1. Cf. Robift$01l, 'JeSU$- From East«'.
BmuoGRAPHY
1. Biblical Writings
Elliger, K., ct al. (eds.), Biblia Hebraii!JJ Stultgartensiao Editio funditus

renovata (Stuttgart: DeutSChe Bibelgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1984 ).
Septuaginta: VetU$ Testamentum Grae~um auctoritate Academiae Litteramm
Gotting1!11$iS ditum (Gi:ittingcn: Vandenboeck & Ruprocht, !966-).
Nesde, E., K. Aland, er al. (~ds.), Novum r~stamentum Graece (Stuttgart:
Deutsche llibelgesellscbaft, 27th edn, 1993).
Aland, B., et al. (eds.), The Greek New Testament (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibclgcscllschaft; London: United Bible Societies, 4th edn, 8th rpr,
2001).
jfilic;her, A. (ed.), Itala: Das neue Testament in altlateinischer Ob~rlie{erung.
II. Marcusevangelium (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1940).
Tl~e Holy Bible, Containing the Old and New T.staments: New Revi"'d
Standard Version (Narional Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.;
Toronto: Canadian Bible Society, !989, 1993).
Robinson, J .M ., P. Hoffmann, and J.S. Kloppenborg (eds.), The Critical
Edition of Q: A Synopsis including the Gospel$ of Malthew and Luke,
Mark and Thomas with ling/ish, German and French Translations of Q
and Thomas (Hermeneia Supplements, 1; Minneapolis: Fonress; Leuvcn:
Peeters, 2000).
2. Works Cited
Abegg, M.G., Jr., 'Who Ascended to Heaven? 4Q491, 4Q4 27, and the
Teacher of Righteousness', in P.W. Flint and C. A. Evans (eds.), Eschatology,
Me$$ianism and the Dead Sea. Scrolls (Studies in the Dead Sea Sc.rolls aod
Related literature; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1997), pp. 61-73.
Adler, W., 'Enoch in Early Christian l iterature', SBLSP (1978) , pp.
1.271-5.
Allinson, F.G. (trans.), Menander: The Principal fragments (lCl; London:
Heinemann; New York: Pumam~s., 1921).
Allison, D.C., Jr., ' Man. 23:39 =luke t3:35b as a Conditional Prophecy',
JSNT 18 (1983), pp. 75-84.
-The jesus 1Tadition in Q (Harrisbur~ PA: Trinity Prtss Jnternational,
1997).
174 Bibliography
- The lnteruxtual jes~U: Scripture in Q (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Pre$S

International, 2000).
Andersen, FJ. {trans.), '2 (Slavonic Apocalypse of) £noc.h', in Charlesworth
(ed.), OTP, pp. 1.91-213.
Attridge, H. W., The Bpistle to the Hebrews: A C<>mmentary on the Bpistk
to the Hebrews (Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989).
Aune, O.E., Revelation 6·16 (WBC, S2B; Nashville: Thomas Nelson,
1998).
Babbitt, F.C., er al. (trans.), Plutarch, Moralia (17 vols. in 16; LCl; london:
Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1927-1976).
Baeon, B. W., Studks in Matthew (london: Henry Holt, 1930).
Banlet, J. V., 'The Source> of St. Luke's Gospel', in W. Sanday (ed .), Studies
in the Synoptic Problem, pp. 31 ~3.
Bauckham, R.j., ' Enoch and Elijah in the Coptic Apocalypse of Elijah', in
E.A. Livingstone (ed.), Studia Patristica 16/2 (TU, 129; Berlin: Akadcmie,
1985), pp. 69-76.
Bayer, H.F., }~sus ~ Pudidions of Wnditation and Ruu"eetion (W\JN'f,
2120; Ttibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986).
8egg, C., (,.Josephus's Ponrayal of [he Disappearances of Enoch, Elijah, and
Moses": Sorne Observations',]BL 109 (1990), pp. 691- 93.
Berger, K., Die Amen· Wone ]esu: Eint Untersuc.hung zum Problem der
Legitimation in apokalyptischer Rede (BZNW, 39; Berlin: de Gruyte~
1970).
-Die Auferstehung des Propheten und die ErhOhung des Menschensohnes
(StiNT, 13; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1976).
Bertram, G., 'Die Himmdfahn Jcsu vom Kreuz an und der Glaube an seine
Aufersrehung', in K.L. Schmidt (ed.), Pestgabe fur Adolf Dei$$mann wm
60. Geburtstag (TUbingen: Mohr Siebock, 1927), pp. 187- 217.
Bickermann, E., 'Das leere Grab', ZNW 23 (1924), pp. 28 1- 92; rpt
P. Hoffmann (ed.), Zur no-ul<:SI4mentlichen Oberlie{erung von der
Auferstehung J"'" (Wege der Forschung, 522; Darmsradr: Wissenschaftlicbe
Buchgesellschaft, 1988), pp. 271-84.
-~Die rOmische- Kaiseraporheose', ARW 27 {1929), pp. 1- 31; rpr
A. Wlosok (ed.), 1/.omischer Kaiserkult (Wege der Forschung, 372;
Darmstadt: Wtssenschahliche Bucbgesellscbafc, 1978), pp. 82- 121.
Black, M., 'The "Two Witnesses .. of Rev 11:3f in Jewish and Christjan
ApocaJyptic Tradition·, in W.O. Dnvles and C.K. Barrett (eds.), Donum
Genti/icium (Festschrift D. Daube; Oxford: Clarendon, 1978), pp.
227-37.
- 'The Messianism of the Parables of Enoch: Their Date and C<>nttibution
[0 Chriscological Origins', in Charlesworth (ed.), The Meuiab, pp.
145-'8.
Bolt, P.G., 'Mark 16:1·8: The Emp<y Tomb of a Hero?' , TynBul 47 (1996),
pp. 27-37.
- jesus' Defeat of Death: Persuading Mark's Early Readers (SNTSMS,
US; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003).
Bibliograpby 175
Borgen, P., ~Ht-.avenly Ascent in Philo: An Examination of Selected Passages•,

in C.A. Evans and J.H. Charlesworth (eds.), The Pse>4depigrapha and
Early Biblical lnterpmation QSPSup, 14; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993),
pp. 246~8.
-·Moses, jesus, and the Roman Emperor: Observations in Philo's Writings
and the Revelation of john', NovT 38 ( 1996), pp. 14.5-59.
Borger. R., 'Tbe Incantation Seties Bit Miseri and Enoch's Ascension tO
Heaven', in D.T. Tsumura and R.S. Hess (eds.), '/ St11died Inscriptions
from before the Flood': All<limt Near Easrern, Literary, and Linguistic
Approaches to Genesis 1· 11 (Sources for Biblical and Theological Study,
4; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1994), pp. 224-33.
Boring, M.E., Sayings of the Risen jesiiS: Chrntian Prophecy;, the Synoptic
Tradition (SNTSMS, 46; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1982).
BOttrich, C., ' Recent Studies in the Slavonic Book of Enoch', jSP 9 (1991),
pp. 35-42.
Bousser, W., The Atrtichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and jewish
Folklore (rrans. A.H. Keane; London: Hutchinson & Co., 1896).
-'Die Himmelsreise der Seele', ARW 4 (1901), pp. 136-69,228-73.
Bousset, W., and H. Cressmann, Die Religion des }~t.dentums im spiithellenis·
tischen Zeitalter (HNT, 21; Ttibingeno Mohr Siebeck, 3rd cdn, 1926).
Brock, S.P., and J.·C. Picard (eds.), Testamentum lobi; Apocalypsi.s Barnchi
graece (PVTC, 2; Leiden: Brill, 1967).
Bultmann, R., The History of the Synoptic Tradition (<rans. J. Marsh;
Oxfordo Blackwell; New Yorko Harper, rev. edn, 1968).
Bundy, W.E.,jesus and the First Three Gospels (Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press, 1955).
Burkin, F. C., The GO$pe/ History and 'lt.s Transmis.oion (Edinburgho T&T
Clark, 2nd edn, 1907).
-The Earliest Sources of the Ufe of ]tsiiS (Boston: Houghton Mifflin,
1910).
Bussmann, W., Synoptische Studitn: Heft 2, Zur Redenquelle (Halle:
Waisenhaus, 1929).
Caragounis, C.C., The Son of Mim (WUNT, 2138; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1986).
CarPinelli, F. G., ·•oo This as My Memorial" (Luke 22: 19)oLucan Sotcriology
of Atonement', CBQ 61 (1999), pp. 74-91.
Cary, E., (trans.), The Roman At~tiquitits of Dionysius of Hali"rnass,q (7
vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Unjversity
Press, 1937-1950).
Casey, M., 'The Use of the Term "'Son of M::m" in the Similitudes of Enoch',
}Sj 7 ( 1976), pp. 1- 29.
--son of Man: The /nterpr<tation and ln(luena of Dan~/ 7 (London:
SPCK, 1980).
Caswr, G.D., Matthow's Sayings of j....s: The Non· Marean Common So~~rce
of Matthew and Lllke (Chi<:ago: UniverSity of Chicago Press, 1918).
176 Bibliography
Catchpole, D.R., 'The Angelic Son of Man in Luke 12:8', NovT 24 (1982),
pp. 255- 65.
-The Quest for Q {Edinburgh: T8cT Clark, 1993).
Cavallin, H .C.C., Life Aft., Death: Paul's Argument for the Resurrection
of the Dead in I Cor IS. Part 1: An Enquiry inro rhe jewish Background
(ConBNT, 711; Lund: Gleerup, 1974).
Cazzaniga, l. (ed.), Anloninus Libera lis: Me<amorph<»eon Synagoge (Milan;
Varese: lstituto Editoriale Cisalpino, 1962).
Ct-1oria, F. (uans.), The Metamorphoses of Antoninu.$ Liberalis: A Translation
with a Commentary (London; New York: Routledge, 1992).
Charles, R.H., The Book of Enoch (Oxford: Clarendon, 1893).
- -A Critical and Exegeti.al Commentary on lhe Revelation of St. john
(ICC; 2 vols.; Edinburgh: T8cT Clark, 1920).
Cbarlesworth, j.H. (ed.), The Old Tesrament Pttudepigrapha (2 vols.; New
York: Doubleday, 1983).
Charlesworth, J.H. (ed.), The Messiah: Developments in Earliest judaism
and Christianil~ (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1982).
Chow, S., The Sign of Jonah Recon#dered: A Study of Its Meaning in
rhe Gospel Traditions (ConBNT, 27; Srockholm: Almqvist 8c Wiksell,
1995).
ChriSt, F., jesus Sophia: Die Sophia-Christologie bei den S~noptikern
(ATANT, 57; Zurich: Zwingli, 1970).
Cohen, A. (ed. and trans.), The Minor Trurates of rhe Talmud: Massdtorh
kerannoth (2 vols.; london: Soncino, 1965).
ColJins, A. Yarbro, 'The Son of Man Sayings in the Sayings Source, in
P.J. Kobelski and M .P. Motg1ln (eds.), To Touch the Text: Biblical and
Related Studies (Festschrift J.A. Fitzmyer; New York: Crossroad, 1989),
pp. 369- 89.
-The Beginning of the Gospel: Probings ofMark in Context (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1992).
- 'Aporheosis and Resurrection', in P. Borgen and S. Gi\'crson (cds.), The
New Tesrament and Hel/enistU; Judaism (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson,
1997), pp. 88-100.
Collins, J.j., 'The Heavenly Representative: The "Son of Man'" in rhe
Similitudes of Enoch', in J.J. Collins and G.W.E. Nickd,burg (cds.),
Ideal Figure> in An<ienl Judaism: Pro(iks and Paradigms (SBLSCS, 12;
Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1980), pp. 111-33.
- ' The Son of M an in First-Centurr Judaism', NTS 38 (1992), pp.
448-66.
-Daniel: A Comment;zry on rhe Book of Daniel (Hermeneia; Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1993).
--The Scepter and the Srar: The Messiahs of the Dead Sea Scrolls and
Orher Ancient LileraturB (Anchor Bible Reference Library; New York:
Doubleday, 1995).
- -The Apocalyptic Imagination: An Introduction to jewish Apo.alyptlc
Lirerature (Grand Rapids: &rdmans, 2nd edn, !998).
Bibliography 177
Colson, F.H., G.H, Whitake~ j.W. Earp, and R. Marcus (trans.), Philo (10
vols., with 2 suppl. vols.; LCL; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Universicy Press, 1929-197 I).
Conybeare, F.C. (trans.), Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tya,.,
the Epistks of Apol/onius, and the Treatise of Eusebius (2 vols.; LCL;
London: Hti11tmaon; New York: Macmillan, 1912).
Croatto, J.S., 'Jesus, Prophet Hke Elijah, and Prophet-Tea<:bc-r like Moses in
l uke·Acrs',JBL 124 (2005), pp. 451~5.
Crossan, J .D., 'Empey Tomb and Absent Lord (Mark 16:1·8)', in W.H.
Kelber (ed.), The Passion in Mark: Studie. on Mark 14-16 (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1976), pp. 135- 52.
- - The Birth of Christianity: Discovttring What Happet~e.d in the Years
l1t1m<diau/y After the Execution ofJesus (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco,
1998).
Daley, ]I.E. (ed. and trans.), On the Do,.,ition of Mary: Early Patristic
Homilies (Crescwood, NY: Sc Vladimir's, 1998).
Davies, W.O., and D.C. Allison, The Gospel According to Saint Matthew
(JCC; 3 vols.; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988- 1997).
Dcan·Otting, M., Heavenly journeys: A Study of the Motif in Hellenistic
jewish Uteratwre Uudentum und Urn we-lt, 8; Frankfurt; New York: Pecer
lang, 1984).
de Jonge, H.J., 'The Sayings on Confessing and Denying jesus in Q 12:8-9
and Mork 8:38', in W.l. Peterson ct a l. (c:<ls.), Sayings ofjesus: Canoniatl
and Non-canonical (Festscrift T. Baarda; NovTSup, 89; Leiden: Brill,
1997), pp. 105-21.
Dclobel, J. (cd.), Logia: Les Paroles de jisus - '('he Sayings of Jesus (In
Memoriam J. Coppens; BETL, 59; Leuven: Lcuven Unjvcrsiry Press and
Peeters, 1982).
Dibelius, M., From Tradition to Gospel (trans. B.l. Woolf; New York:
Chari .. Scribner's Sons, 1935).
Dupont, j., 'Lc Logion de douze trones (Mt 19,28; Lc 22,28·30)', Bib 45
{1964), pp. 355-92.
Edwards, R.l\., The Sign ofJonah in the Teaching of the Evangelists and Q
(London: SCM, 1971).
- A Theology of Q: Eschatology, Prophecy and Wisdom (Philadelphia:
Fortre!S, 1976).
Ehrman, B.D, The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture: The Effecr of Early
ChristologictZI Controversies on the Text of the New 1"e.stament {New
York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993).
Elliott, j.K. (ed.), The Apocryphal New Testa ment: A Collection of
Apocryphal Chrjsti4n Literature in an English Translation (Oxford:
Clarendon, 1993).
Evans, C.F., Rssu"sction and the New Tutament (SBT, 2112; Loudon: SCM,
1970).
Farmer, W.R., The Gospel of Jesus: The Pastoral Relevance of the Synoptic
Problem (Louisville, KY: Westminster john Knox, 1994).
178 Bibliography
Farrer, A.M., 'On Dispensing with Q', in D.E. Nineham (ed.), Studies in tht
Gospels (In Memoriam R.H. lightfoot; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1955),
pp. 55-88.
Fiamyer, J.A., The Gospel according 10 Luke (AB, 28- 28A; 2 vols.; New
York: Doubleday, 1981- 1985).
Fleddermann, H.T., 'John and the Coming One (Matt 3:11·12/1 Luke 3:16-
17}', SBLSP 23 (1984), pp. 377-84.
-'The Q Saying on Confessing and Denying', SBLSP 26 (1988), pp.
606-16.
- -'The Cross and Discipleship in Q ', SBLSP 27 (1988), pp. 472-82.
-'The End of Q', SBLSP29 (1990), pp. 1-10.
- Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts (BETL, 122; Leuven: Leuven
University Press and Peeters, 1995).
-Q: A Reconstruction and Comment4ry (Biblical Tools and Studies, I;
Leuven: Peeters, 2005).
Focant, C., 'Du Fils de i'Homme assis (Lc 22,69) au Fils del'Homme debour
(Ac 7,56}: Enjeux thcologique et litteraire d'un changement semantique',
in J. Verheyden (ed.), in T he Unity of Luke-Acts (BETL, 142; Leuven:
Leuven Uruversiry Press and Peet«S, 1999), pp. 563- 76.
Franklin, E., cA Passion Narrative for Q?', in C. Rowland and C. F1ttcber-
Lewis (eds.), Underst4nding, Studying and Reading (Fescschrift j. Ash ron;
JSNTSup, 153; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1998), pp. 30-47.
Frazer, j.G. (trans.), Apollodorus, The Library (LCL; 2 vols.; London:
Heinemann; New York: Putnam•s. 1 921).
Frazer, j.G. (trans.), Ovid, Fasti (rev. G.P. Goold; LCL; Cambridge, MA:
Harvard Univmity Press, 2nd edn, 1996).
Garland, D.E., The Intention of Matthew 2J (NovTSup, S2; Leiden: Brill,
1979).
Georgi, D., 'Der vorpaulinische Hymnus Phil 2,6·11', in E. Dinkier (ed.),
Ut und Geschichte (Festschrift R. Bulrmann; Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck,
1964), pp. 26>--93.
Goold, G.P. (ed. and trans.), Chariton: CaUirhoe (LCL; Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press, 19.95).
Goulder, M.D., Luke: A New Paradignt USNTSup, 20; 2 vols.; Sheffield:
JSOT Press, 1989).
GraBer, E.• Die Noherwartung )esu (SBS, 61; Stuttg <H t: Kar.bolischc
Bibelwerk, 1973).
Green, j.B., Th~ D~ath of}~sus: Tradition and Interpretation in the Passion
Na"ative (WUNT, 2133; T Ubingcn: Mohr Siebeck, 1988).
Grelor, P., ' La legende d'Hcnocb dans les Apocrypbes et dans Ia Bible:
Origine et signification', RSR 46 {1958), pp. S-26, 181-210.
Grobe!, J<., •• ... Whose Name was Neves••, NTS 10 (1964}, pp. 37.3-82.
Grundmann, W., Das Evangelium "ach LukaJ (THKNT, 3; Berlin:
Evangelische Verlaganstah, 2nd edn, 1961 ).
Grzybek., E., Du calendrin macldonien au ca/endritr ptoltmalque:
probl~meJ de chronologie hellbtistique (Schwei.u rische Beitrige z.ur
Bibliography 179
Altertumswissensc.haft. 20; Basel: Friedrich Reinhardt, 1990).

Gundry, R .H., Matthew: A Commentary on His Htmdbook for a Mbced
Ch"rch Under Persecution (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2nd edn, 1994).
Haacker, K., and P. Schafer, "N3cbbiblische Traditiontn vom Tod des Moses',
in 0 . Betz et al. (eds.), jos"{Jhus-Studien (Festschrift 0. Michel; Gortingen:
Vanden.hoeck & Ruprecht, 1,74), pp. 147-74.
Haenchen, E., 'Matthiius 23', ZTK 48 (1951), pp. 38-63.
Halperin, D.J., ~Ascenslon or Invasion: Implications of the Heavenly jou.rney
in Ancient judaism', R•l18 (1988), pp. 47-67.
Hamilton, N.Q., 'Resurrec1ion Tradition and the ComJ>O$iti.on of Mark',
JBL 84 (1965), pp. 415-21.
Hare, D.R.A., The Son of Man Tradition (Minneapoli5: Fortress, 1990).
Hare, D.R.A. (trans.), 'The Liv.,. of the Prophets', in Charlesworth (ed.),
OTP, pp. 2.379- 99.
Harnack, A., The Sayings of jesus: The Second Source of St. Matthew and
St. Luke (trans. J.R. Wilkinson; New York: Putnam's; London: Williams
& Norgate, 1908).
Harrington, D.J. (uaos.), 'Pseudo-Ph.ilo', in Charlesworth (ed.), OTP, pp.
2.297-377.
Harmon, A.M., K. Kilburn, and M.D. MacLeod (trans.), Lucian (LCt; 8
vols.; London: Heinemann; Cambridge, M.A: Harvard University Press,
1913-1967).
Haufe~ G., 'Ent.rUckung und eschatologisc:be Funktion im Spitjude:nturn•,
ZRCC 13 (1961),pp.l05-13.
Hawkins,J.C., Horae Synopticae: Contributions to the Stlldy of the Synoptic
Problem (Oxford: Clarendon, 2nd edn, 1909).
-'Probabilities as to the So-Called Double Tradition of St. Matthew and
St. luke', in Sanday (ed.), Studies irr the Synoptic Problem, pp. 95- 138.
Hays, R.B., '"The Righteous One• as Escha tological Deliverer: A Case Study
in Paul's Apocalyptic Hermeneutics', in J. Marcus and M.L. Soards (eds.),
Apocalyptic and the New Testament (Festschrift J.l . Martyn; JSNTSup,
H ; Sheffield: JSOT Pre•s, 1989), pp. 191- 215.
Hayward, R., ' Phinehas -The Same is Elijah: The Origin of a Rabbinic
Tradition', JjS 29 (1978), pp. 22-38.
Hazzard, R.A., Imagination ofa Monarchy: Studt'~ in Ptolemaic Propagonda
(Phoenix Supplementary Volume, 37; Toronto: University of Toronto
Press, 2000).
Head, P.M., 'On the Christology of the Gospel of Peter', VC 46 (1992), pp.
209- 24.
Heil, C. (ed.), Q 12:8·12: Confessing or D81lying; Speaking against the Holy
Spirit; Hearings before Synagog.«• (Oocumenta Q; Leuven: Peeters, 1997).
Hengel, M., 'jesus as Messianic Tt.acher of Wisdom and rhe Beginnings of
Chrisrology', in Studies in Early Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1995), pp. 73-117.
HiU, A.E., Malachi: A New Translation with lntroduaiorr and Commentary
(All, 250; New York: Doubleday, 1998).
180 Bibliography
Himmelfutb, M.,'A Report on Enoch in Rabbinic Licerarure', SBLSP (1978),

pp. 1.259-09.
-Ascent to Heaven in jewish and Christian Apocalypses {Oxford; N~w
York: Oxford University Press, 1993).
-··me Practice of Ascent in tht Ancient Mediterranean World•1 in J.J.
Collins and M. Fish bane (eds.), Death, ~and Other Worldly Journeys
(Albany, NY: Srare Universiry of New York Press, 1995), pp. 12 1-37.
Hirsch, E., Dk Friihgeschichte des Evangetiums: Heft 2, Dk Vorlagen des
Lukas und das Sondergut des Matthiius (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1941).
Hock, R.F., The Infan<y Gospels of James and Thomas (Scholars' Bible, 2;
Sanra Rosa, CA: Polebridge, 1995).
Hoffmann, P., 'jesusverkilndigung in der Logienquelle•, in W. Pesch (ed.),
Jesus in den Evangelien (SBS, 45; Stuttgart: Katholiscbes Bibelwerk,
1970), pp. 50-70.
-'Aufersrehung Jesu Chrisri (Neues Tesrament)', TR£ 4 (1979), pp.
478- 513 .
--$tudien zur Theologi• der Logienquelle (NTAbh, 8; Munster:
Aschendorff, 3rd edn, 1982).
-'Jesus versus Menschensoho: Matthaus 10,32f und die synopcische
Menschensohn ..UbetJieferung•, jn P. Fiedler and L Oberlinner (eds.)., Salz
der Erde - Licht der Welt: &egetiSGhe Studien ZMm Matthiiusevangelir<m
(Festschrift A. Vogtle; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibclwerk, 1991), pp.
165-202.
-'QR und der Menschensohn: Eine vorli ufige Skizze', in Van Segbroeck
et al. (eds.), The Four Gospels 1992, pp. 421-56.
- 'Q 13.34-35: Second Response', appendix 10 S.R. johnson, '552: Q
13,34· 35' (unpublished databa"" prepared for rhe lnrernational Q Project
Work Sessions, 1994).
--'The Redaction of Q and rhe Son of Man' A Preliminary Sketch', in Piper
(ed.), Gospel Behind the Gospels, pp. 159- 98.
- 'Ht.rrsche:r oder Richter iiber Israel?', in G. Sass and K. Wengst {eds.),
fa und Nein: Christliche Theok>gie im Ange.sicht lsraels (Festschrift W.
Schrage; Neukircben·VIuyn: Neultircbener, 1998), pp. 253-04.
-'Der Menschensohn in Lukas 12:8', NTS 44 (1998), pp. 357-79.
Hoffmann, P..,J.E. Amon., U. Brauner, and T. Hieke, 'Confessing or Denying',
in Hell (ed.), Q 12:8·12, pp. 1-425.
Hoffmann, P., S.H. Brandenburger, U. Brauner, and T. Hieke, Q 22:28,30:
You Will Judge lhe Twelve Tribes of Israel (ed. C. Heil; Documenta Q;
Lcuvcn: Peeters, 1998).
Holbl, G., A History of the Ptolemoi< Empire (Londnn; New York:
Routledge, 2001).
HoUeman,]., Resurrection and Parousia: A Traditio· Historical Study of Paul's
£schatology in J Corinthians lS (NovTSup, 84; leiden: Brill, 1996).
Horrell, O.G., and C.M. Tuckett (eds.), Christology, Controversy and
Community: New Testament E.$SQ)'S (Festschrift D.R. Cuchpolc:~
NoVl'Sup, 99; Leiden: Brill, 2000).
Bibliograplry 181
Horsley, R., 'Social Conflict in the Synoptic Sayings Source Q', in J.S.
Kloppenborg (ed.), Conflict a.n d Invention: Literary, Rhetorical and
Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q (Valley Forge, PA: Trinity Press
International, 1995), pp. 37- 52.
Hultgren.• A., The Ris~ of Normative Christianity (Minneapolis: For[r~s,
1994).
Hurtado, l.W., lmd jes~~S Christ: Devotion to ]~.sus in Earliest CIJristianity
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003).
Isaac, E. (trans.), ' I (Ethiopic Apocalypse of) Enoch', in Charleswonh (ed.),
OTP, pp. l.S-$9.
Jacobson, A.D., 'The Literary Unity of Q',]BL 101 (1982), pp. 365-89.
- -'Apocalyptic and the Sayings Source Q', in Van Segbroeck et al. (eds.),
The Four Gosp•ls 1992, pp. 403-19.
- The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Foundations sod Facets;
Sonoma, CA: Pokbridgc, 1992).
jacoby F. (ed.), Die Frogmen~ der griecl1ischen Historiker (3 parts, 15 vols.;
Leiden: Brill, 1950- 1964).
Jarvinen, A., 'Jesus as Community Symbol in Q', in Lindemann (ed.), The
Sayings Source Q and the Historical jesus, pp. 5 15- 21.
Jeremias. J.• Ne-w Testament- Theology (trans. J. Bowden; NTL; London:
SCM, 1971).
Johnson, L.T., The l'irtt and Serond utu!rs to Trmothy: A New Tran.slation with
/ntToduaion and Commentary (A.B, 35A; New York: Doubleday, 2001 ).
Johnson, S.R., ' SS2: Q 13:3-4-35' (unpublished da<abase prepared for <he
IQP Work Sessions, 1994).
jones, W.H.S., H.A. Ormerod, and R.E. Wychc:rlcy (trans.). Pausnnias,
Deuription of Gr~tce (lCL; S vols.; London: Heinemann; New York:
Putnam's, 1913-19351.
Jiilicher, J., An Introduction to the New Testamenl (rrans. J.P. Ward; London:
Smith & Elder, 1904).
Junod, E., and J.·D. Kae-stli (cd. otnd t~ns.}, Acta lobannis: Ttx-t vs alii
- Commentarivs - Indices (CChr Series Apocryphorum, 2; 2 vols.;
Turnhout: Brepols, 1983).
Kaestli, J.· D., 'Le role des textes bibliques dans Ia genese et le devel-
opment des legendes apocryphcs: le cas du sort final de l'ap6tre jean',
Augustinianum 23 (1983), pp. 319-36.
- -'Ou en est l'e<ude de l'"~vangile de Barth~lemy"?', RB 95 (1988), pp.
5-33.
Kaesdi, J.·D., and P. Cherix, L'evangile de Barthelemy d'apres deux ecrits
apocryphes (Tumhout: Brcpols, 1993).
Kisemann-. E., 'On the Subject of Primitjve Christian Apocalyptic', in New
Test4ment Questions of Today (trans. W.j . Montague; NTL; London:
SCM, 1969), pp. 108-37.
Kirk, A.K., 'Examining Priorities: Another Look 3t the Gospel of Peter's
Relationship to the New Testamem Gospels', NTS 40 ( 1994), pp. 572-
95.
182 Bibliography
- The Composition ofthe Sayings S<>urce: Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom

Reda<tion in Q (NovTSup, 91; Lciden: Brill, 1998).
- ' I s Q Without Passion?' (unpublished paper presented at the S<>eiety of
Biblical Literature Annual Meeting, November 1998).
- -'The Memory of Violence and the Death o f jesus in Q', in A. Kirk and
T. Thatcher (eds.), Memory, Tradition, and Text: Uses of the Past in Early
Christianity (Scmeia Studies, 52; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature,
2005), pp. 191-206.
Klijn, A.F.j. (trans.), '2 (Syriac Apocalypse of) Baruch', in Charlesworth (ed.),
OTP, pp. 1.615-52.
Kloppenborg, j.S., The Formation of Q: Trajectories in AncW.t Wisdom
Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987).
- 'Symbolic Eschatology and the Apocalypti<ism of Q', HTR 80 (1987),
pp. 287-306.
--Q Parallel.: Synopsis, Criti.al Notes, & Concordance (Foundations and
Faceu; Sonoma, CA: Polebridge, 1988}.
- -'"Easter Faith" and the Sayings Gospel Q', in R. Cameron (ed.), The
Apocryphal Jesus and Christian Origins (Semeia 49; Atlanta: Scholars,
1990), pp. 71-99.
-'Literary Convention, Se1f-Evidence and the Social History o( the Q
People', in Kloppenhorg and Vaage (eels.), Early Christianity, Q and jesus,
pp. 77-102.
- -'jesus and rbe Parables of jesus in Q', in Piper (ed.), Gospel Behind the
Gospels, pp. 275- 319.
- -Excavating Q: The History and Social Setting of the Sayings Gospel
(Minneapolis: Fortress; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000).
- 'EIIOC4tio deorum and the Date of Mark', JBL 124 (2005), pp. 419-
50.
Kloppenhorg, j.S., and L.E. Vaage, 'Early Christianity, Q and jesus: The
Sayings Gospel and Method in the Study of Christian Origins', in
Kloppenhorg and Vaage (eds.}, Early Christianity, Q and jesus, pp.
1-14.
Kloppenborg, j.S., and L.E. Vaage (ed.s.), Early Christianity, Q and Juus
(S<meia, 55; Atlanta: Scholars, 1991 ).
Knox, W.L., The S<>uras of the Sylf()pti< Gospel.: Vol. 2, St. Luke and St.
Matthew (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1957).
Koch, D.·A., 'Der Text von Hab 2.4b in der Septuag_inta und im Ncucn
Tescament'. ZNW 76 (1985), pp. 68-85.
Kolarcik, M., The Ambiguity of Death in the Book of Wisdom 1-6: A Study
of Literary Structure and lnt"1>rel4tion (AnBib, 127; Rome: Pontifieio
brituto Biblieo. 1991 ).
Knft, R.A.,'Philo Uoscpbus, Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon) on Enoch',
SBLSP (1978), pp. 1.2.13- 7.
Krame-r. S.N. (trans.), 'SP.meri.an Myths otod Epic Tales\ in Pritchard (ed.),
ANET, pp. 37-59.
Krueger, D. (ed. and tuns.}, Symeon the Holy Fool: Leontiu.s's 'Life" and the
Bibliography 183
Late Antique City (Transformation of rhe Classical Herirage, 25; Berkdey,

CA: Universir:y oi Californ ia Press, 1996).
Kiimme~ W.G., Vcrhei.sSJ<ng und Erfullut~g: Untersud>ung zur es<hatologischen
Vn-kundigut~g ]esu (ATANT, 6; Basel: Heinrich Maje~ 2nd edn, 1953).
Kvanig, H.S., Roots of Apocalyptic: Tht Mesopotamian Background of
the Enoch Figure of the Son of Man (WMANT, 61; Neukircben-VIuyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1988).
Lambrecbr, J., 'Q ·1n0uence on Mark 8,34-9,1', in Delobel (ed.), Logia, pp.
277-304.
laufen, R. , Die Doppeluberlie{erungen der Logienquelle und des
M4rkusevangeliums (BB8, 54; Konigstein; Bonn: Hanstein, 1980).
Liebetman.n, S., 'Meta[ron: The Meaning of His Name and His Functions',
in I. Gruenwald (ed.), Apocalyptic and Merkabah Mysticism (AGJU, 14;
lciden: Brill, 1980), pp. 2354 1.
Lindars, 8 ., 'The Apocalyptic Myth and the Dea th oi Christ', BJRI. 57
(1975), pp. 366-87.
- /esu.s Son of M4n: A Fresh Examination of the Son of Man Sayings in the
Gospels in the Light of Recent Research (London: SPCK, 1983).
Lindemann, A. (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical jesus (BETL,
158; Lcuven: leuven University Press and Peeters, 2001).
Ups, H. von, Wei.sbeitliche Traditionen im Neuen Testament (WMANT, 64;
Munich: Neultirehener, 1990).
LobJink, G., Die Himmelfahrt ]esu: Untersuchungen tu den Himmelfahrts•
und Erhohu,.gstexten bei Lukas (SANT, 26; Munich: Kosel, 1971).
Lohmeye~ E., Galiliia und jerusalem (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1936).
-Kyrios Jesus~ € intt Untersuc:hung zu Phil. 2,5- 11 (Darmstadt:
Wisscnscbaftliche Buchgesellschaf<, 2nd edn, 1961).
Longenecker, R.N .., New Wine into Fresh WiMdim: C<JntexhuJlizing tht
Early Christian Confessions (Peabody, MA; Hendrickson, 1999).
LUdemann, G., The Resurrection of jesus: History, Experience, Theology
(London: SCM, 19.94).
Lohrmann, D., Die Redaktion der Logienque//e (WMANT, 33; Neukircben-
Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969).
- 'Henoch und die Meranoia', ZNW 66 (1975), pp. 103- 16 .
- 'The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q',]BL 108 (1989),
pp. 5 1-71 .
Lux., U., Manh~ 8-20: A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minne.apolis: Foruess,
2001).
MacCormack, S.G., Art and Ceremony in Late Antiquity (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1981).
Mack, B.L., A Myth of Innocence: Mark and Christian Origins (Philadelphia:
Fortress, 1988).
- 'Lord of rhe Logia: Savior or Sage?', in C.W. Hedrick eta!. (eds.), Gospel
Origins and Christian Beginnings (Festschrift J.M. Robinron; Forum
Fascicles, 1; Sonoma, CA; Polebridge, 1990), pp. 3-18.
184 Bibliography
- The Lo.e Gospel: The Book ofQ and Christian Origins (San Francisco:
HarperCollins, 1993).
Malberbe, A.j., The Letters to the Thessaloniari.S: A New Translation with
/nt.odw:tion and Commentary (AB, 32B; New York: Doubleday, 2000).
Manns, F. (ed. and tran$.), Le rJcit de Ia Dormition de Marie (Vatic.an
gree 1982): eonr.r-ibution ii l'ttude des origines tk l'exegese chritienne
{Collectio maior, Studium Biblicum Franciscanum, 33; jerusalem:
Franciscan, 1989).
Manson, T. W., The Sayings of jesus: As Recorded in the Gospels According
to St. Matthew and St.. Luke Arranged with Introduction and Comme?Jtary
{London: SCM, 1937).
Mara,. M.G. (ed. and rrans.)~ &angile de Pierre: Introduction, Uxt.e critiqut,
tradu&tion, commentaire et index (SC, 201; Paris: Cerf, 1973).
Marrin., R.P., A Hymn o{ Christ: Philippimu 2:5- 11 in Rec.ent lnt-erprekltion
& in the Setting of Early ChristiatJ Worship (Downers Grove, JL;
lnterVarsiry, 3rd edn, 1997).
Marxsen, W., Mark the Evangelist: Studies on the Redaction History of the
Gospel (Nashville: Abingdon, !969).
Me-Cam, j. W., 'The Gospel of Peter: Docerism Reconsidered', NTS 30
(1984), pp. 258- 73.
McKnight, S., 'Public Dcclarntion or Final Judgment? Matthew 10:26-27 =
Luke 12:2·3 as a Case of Creacive Redaction', in B. Chilmn and C. Evans
(eds.), Authenticating the Words of }es,. (NITS, 2811; Leiden: Brill,
1999), pp. 363-83.
Meadors, E.P., jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation (WUNT, 2/72;
Tllbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1995).
Meeks, W.A., The Prophet-King: Moses Traditions and the johannine
Christology (NovTSup, 14; Leiden: Brill, 1967).
Mcr1dein, H., 'Mk 16, 1-8 als Epilog des Markusevangeliums•, in C. Focant
(ed. ), The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary
Criticism (BETL, 110; l.euven: Lc:uven University Press and Peeters,
1993), pp. 209-38.
Metzger, B.M ., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament
(Stuctgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2nd edn, 1994).
Michael, J.H., 'The lament over jerusalem', A}T22 (1918), pp. 101-13.
Miller, F.J. (trans.), Ovid, Metamorphoses (rev. G.P. Goold; LCL;
Cambridge-, MA: Harvard Unlverslty Pre.ss; London: Heinemann, Jrd
edn, 1984).
Miller, R.J., 'The Rejection of the Prophets in Q', ]BL 107 ( 1988), pp.
225-40.
- 'bnmortallty and Religious lderuity in Wisdom 2- 5", in Tau5sig and
Castelli (eds.), ll.<imagining Clrri>tian Origins, pp. 199- 213.
Mimouni, S.C., Dormition et assomption tk Marie: histoire d~s traditions
4nciennes (Theologie bistoriquc, 98; P:uis: Be.aucheme. 1995}.
Morenz., S. (cd. and trans.), Dit! Geschichte von Joseph tkm Zimmermann
!TU, 56; Berlin: Akademie, 1951 ).
Bibli~aphy 185
~oun.,.., W.O., Pastoral Epistk$ (WBC, ~; Nashville: Thomas Nelson,

2000).
Myllykooki, M., 'The Social Hisrory of Q and the jewi1h War'. io R. Uro
(ed.), Symbols and Strata, pp. 146-99.
Neirynek, F., 'Rtcent Dc:vdopmeou in the Study of Q', in Dc:lobcl (ed.),
Log/a, pp. 29-75.
-'Q: Fr<>m Soutce ro Go.pel', ETL 71 (1995), pp. 421-30.
Nic:ltelsburg, G. W.E., Resurret:tion, Immortality a'fJ E.ternal Life in
l•tutestam<ntal Jucumm (Harvard Theological Studies, 26; Cambridge,
MA: Ha,..,ard University Pre,., 1972}.
- 'The Genre and Function of the Markan Pa$$ion Narrative'. HTR 73
( 1980), pp. 153-84.
- 'Resurreetion: Early judaism and Chriscianity', IIBD S, pp. 684- 91.
Nickelsburg, G. W.E., and J.C. VanderKam led. and rrans.), 1 Em><l~: II New
Translation (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2004).
:-lilsson, M., 'Dc:r Flammenrod des Herakles auf dtm Oitt',IIR\11 22 (1922),
pp. 310-16.
Nisedch, F. (rranr.), The Poems of Callimad.us (Oxford: Oxford UniverSity
Ptess, 2001).
NoUand, J., Luke 9:21-18:34 (WBC, JSB: O.llu: Word, 1993).
Niirul,j.M., 'Zum Schi<:ksal deres<Mrologi<cbcn Prophe<en·, BZ 20 (19761,
pp. 59-94.
Padilla, M.W.• The Myths of Hualtles in Ancient Greue: Suroey and Profile
(Lanham, MD: Univer~iry Press of America, 1998).
Palmer, D.W., 'Origin, Form, and Purpose of Mark 16;4 in Codex BobbirnsiJ•,
JTS 27 (1.976}, pp. 113-22.
Papanikolaou, A., Chariton·Studien: Unttr~uchungen :;Hr Sprache unJ
Chrono logie der gn·~chischm roman~ (Hypomnematu, 37; GOttingen:
Vondenhoeek & Ruprecht, 1973).
Parsoos. M.C., The Dtporture of jesus in Luke~Acls: 'l'he A~eension
Narratives in Context (JSNTSup, 21; Sheffield: ]SOT Prets, 1987).
Pa ulsen, H ., 'Mk XVI1 ·8' , NovT 22 (1980), pp. 138-75.
Pearson, B.A.• •The Pierpont Morgan Fragmenu o( a Coptic Enoch
Apocryphon', in G. Nickelsburg (ed.), Studies o n the Testament o{
Abraham !SBtSCS, 6; Mi.,oula, MT: Scholars, 1976), pp. 227-83.
Pea.sc, A.S., •Some AspectS of lnvisibitiry•, Harvard St.ulits in Cla.uical
PhiloJoo 53(1942), pp. 1-36.
Peek, W., Griechisd>e Gr,J,gedichu, Griechisd> uffd D&ISch (Schriften und
Quellen der Allen Welt, 7; &din: Akadcmie-V.rlag, 1960).
Perrin, B. (trans.), Plu1<1rch's Uvea ILCL; II vols.; London: Heinemann; New
York: Macmillan, 191<1-1926).
Pmin, N, 'lbe Son ot Man in the Syooprjc Tradition', BibR<S 13 ( 1968~ pp. J-25.
Pesch, R., 'Zur Enmchung des Glaubens an di< Auferste hungjesu', TQ 153
(1973), pp. 201-28.
- 'Der Sch luB der vormarkinischen Pa ssionsgesehichtc und des
Mnrkusevongeliums: Mk 15,42-16,8', in M. Snbbc (ed.), L'6vangile selon
186 Bibliography
Marc: Tradition et redaction {8E·rL, 34; Leuven: Leuveo University Press

and Peeters, 1974), pp. 365-410.
--Das Markusevangelium (HTK.l\.1rf, 2; 2 vo)s.; Freiburg: Herder, 2nd edn,
1980).
- 'Zur Enrsrehung des Glaubens an die Aufecsrehung Jesu: Ein neuer
Versuch', Freiburger Zaitschrift fUr Phi/Qsophie und Theologie 30 (1983),
pp. 73-98.
Pfeiffer, R. (cd.), Callimachus (2 vols.; Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1949).
Piper, R.A., Wisdom in the Q Tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of ]e!ius
(SNTSMS, 61; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989).
Piper, R.A. (ed.), The Gospel Behind the Gospels: Current Studies on Q
(NovTSup, 75; Leiden: Brill, 1995).
Plevnik, J., ;The Taking lip of the Faithful and the Resurrection of the Dead
in 1 Thessalonians 4:13· 18', CBQ 46 (1984), pp. 274- 83.
- 'Paul's Appeals to His Damascus Experience and I Cor 15:5-7: Aie They
Legitimations?' Toronto journal of Theology 4 (1988), pp. 101-11.
Pokorny, P., The Genesis of Christology (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987).
Polag, A., Die Christologie Jer Logienquelle (WMANT, 4S; Ncukirchc:n-
VIuyn: Neukircbener, 1977).
- 'The Theological Cen~ of the Sayings Source', in P. Sruhlmacher (ed.), The
GospeJand the Gospels (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), pp. 97-105.
Price, S.R.F, 'From Noble Funerals to Divine Cui~ The Consecration of Roman
Emperors', in S. Price and D. Cannadine (eds.), Rituals of Royalty: Power
and Ceremonial in 'Traditional Societie.s (Past and Present Publications;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), pp. 56- 105.
Pritchard, J.B. (ed.), Ancient Near &mern Texts Rei<Jting to the Old
Testameni (Princeton, Nj: Princeton Universicy Press, 3rd edo., 1969).
Rabbinowirz, j. (trans.), Midrash Rabbah: Deuteronomy (ed. H. Freedman
and M. Simon; London: Soncino, 1974).
Ramsay, W.M., Luke the Physician, and Other Studies in the History of
Religion (London: Hodder, 1908).
Reardon, B.P. (ed. and rrans.), Collected Greek Novels (Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press, 1989).
Rengstorf, K., Die Auferstehung jesu: Form, Art und Sinn der urchristlichen
Osterbotuha{t (W.nen-Ruhr: Luther, 1952).
Robef[s, A., and J. Donaldson (eds.), The Ante-Nicene FatlJers (1 0 Yo1s.; rpf
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1994 fi88S-1887J).
Robinson, F. (ed. and trans.), Coptic Ap<><ryphal Gost,.ls (Tt>rtS and Studies,
4.2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Pre>s, 1896).
Robinson, J.M., 'jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the
Gospels', in R.L. Wilken (ed.}, Aspects of Wisdom in Judoism and Early
Christianity (South 8end, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), pp.
1-16.
- 'jeous - From Easter to Valenrinus (or to the Aposdes' Creed)',JBL 101
( 1982), pp. S- 37.
Bibliography 187
--'The Son of Man in the Sayings Gospel Q' , in C. Elsas (ed.), Tradition
und Translation: z,m Problem der interltultu-rell~n Obersetzbark.eit
r<ligii:istr Phiin()mm• (Festschrift C. Colpe; Berlin and New York: de
Gruyter, 1994), pp. 315- 35.
-'Building Blocks in the Social History of Q', in Taussig and Castelli
(cds.), Reimagining Christian Origins, pp. 87-112.
- 'The Sequence of Q: The Lament over Jerusalem', in U. Busse ~nd R.
Hoppe (eds.), Von ]<SUS :rum Christus: Christolcgis<:he Studien (Festschrift P.
Hoffmann; BZNW, 93; Berlin; New York: de Gruyter, 1.998), pp. 225~0.
- -'The Crirical Edirion of Q and rhe Study of Jesus', in Lindemann fed.),
Sayings Source Q and the Histomal jesus, pp. 27- 52.
Rohde, E., Psycht: The Cult of Souls and Belief in Immortality Among the
Crults (trans. W.B. Willis; Londono Routledge & Kcgan Paul, 1925).
Rosenst:iehl, J.-M. (ed. and trans.), L'Apocalyps~ d~Elie: Introduction,
traduction, tl notes (Textt$ et etudes pOur scrvir 3 l'histoirc du judaisme
inrcnestamema.ire, 1; Paris: P. Geuthner, 1972}.
Ryden. L., Bemerkwngen z.um Leben des heiligen Na'rrtn Syrneon von
Ltontios vcm Neapolis (Acta Universitatis UpsaJiensis, Studia Graeca
Upsalien$ia, 6; Srockholrn: Almqvist & Wiksell, 1970).
Ryden, L. (ed.), Das Leben des heiligen Namm Symeon von uontios von
Neapolis (Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, Studia Graeca Upsaliensia, 4;
Stockholm: Almqvist & Wikscll, 1963).
Sanday, W. (ed .J, Studies in the Synoptic Problem by Members of the
University of Oxford (Oxford: Clarendon, 1911 ).
Sato, M ., Q und Propheti.e: Studien zur Gattungs- und Tradition.sgeschic.hte
dtr Qu•lle Q (WUNT, 2129; Tiibiogen: Mohr Siebeck, 1988).
Scbaferdiek, K.. (rrans.), 'The Aas of john', in Schnecmelcher (ed.), New
Testament Apocrypha, pp. 2.152- 209.
Scbenkc, L., Auierstehungsverkilndigung emd leeres Crab: eine tradi-
tionsgeschichtliche Untersucbung 110n Mk 16, 1-8 (SBS, 33; Srurrgarr:
Katholisches Bibclwerk, 1968).
Schmicdel, P.W., Das vierte Evangelium gegenUber den drei ersten
Johannesschri{un de Neuen TI!Staments f l"ubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1906).
Schmidt, D., 'The LXX Ganung "Prophetic Correlative"', ]BL 96 (1977),
pp. 517- 22.
Scbmin, A., 'Die Angaben iiber Henoch Gen 5, 21·24 in der LXX', in j.
Schreiner (ed.), Wort, Lied und Cotttsspruch: Beilriige "" Septuaginta
(Festschrift]. Ziegler; FzB, 1; Wurzburg: Eehrer, 1972), pp. 161-69.
--Enrriickung - Aufnahme - Himmelfahrt: Untersuchungen zu eincm
Vorsttllungsbl!f'tich im Allen Testament (FzB, 10; Sturtgarr: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 2nd edn, 1976).
--'Zum Thema "Entrilckung" im Alten Testament', BZ 26 (1982), pp.
34- 49.
- Das BU<:h der Weisheit: Ein Kr>mmentar (Wiirzburg: Eehter, 1986).
- 'Der friihe Tod des Gerechren nach Weisb 4,7-19: Ein Psalmthem~ in
weisheitlicher Fassung', in F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Haag (eds.), Fr.ude an
188 Bibliography
der Weisung des Herrn: Beitrage zur Theologie der Psalmen (F..tschrift H.
Gross; SBB, 13; Srungart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986), pp. 325-47.
Schmitt, C., 'Das Zeichcn des Jona', ZNW 69 (1978), pp. 123-29.
Schneemelcber, W. (ed.), New Testament Apocrypha (trans. R.M. Wilson; 2
vols.; louisville:: Westminster john Knox, rev. edn, 1991-1993).
Schulz., S., Q: Die S(n'uchquelle der Evangelisten (Z urich: Theologischer
Verlag, 1972\.
Schiinna.nn, H, 'Beobacbcungen zum Menschensohn·Tire! in der Redequelle', in R.
Schnackenbucg and R. Pesch (eds.), jesus und der Menschensohn (Festschrift
A. Vogde; Freiburg (Breisgau): Herde~ 1975), pp. 124-47.
- -'Observations on the Son of Man Tide in the Speech Source•, in j .S.
Kloppenborg (ed.), The Shape of Q: Signal ES$ti)'S on the Sayings Gospel
(Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 74-97.
Seeley, D .. •Narrative, the Righteous Man and the Philosopher: An Analysis
of rhe Story of the Dikaios in Wisdom 1- 5', jSP 7 (1990), pp. 55-78.
- 'Blessings and Boundaries: lnterpret:Hions of Jesus• Death in Q', in
Kloppenborg and Vaage (eds. ), Early Christianity, Q and jesus, pp.
131-46.
- 'Jesus' Death in Q', NTS 38 (1992), pp. 222- 34.
Segal, A. F., 'Heavenly Asc.ent in Hellenistic Judaism~ Eotrly Chdstiaoicy and
their Environment', ANRW23.2 (1980), pp. 1333-94.
St.venich ·Ba~ E., /sraels Konfrontation mit den letztcn BoU'n der Weisheit:
fo m·1, Funktion und l nt.erdepende-nz der Weisheitselemente in der
Logitnqutllt (Miinsteraner theologische Abhandlungen, 21; Altenberge:
Oros, 1993).
Shapiro, H.A., 'Heros Theos: The Death and Apotheosis of Herakles',
Classical World 77 (1983), pp. 7-18.
Siegert, F. (ed. and trans.), Dui hellenistiscb·iiidische Prtdigten (W\TNT, 20;
Tiibingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1980).
Skehan, P.W., and A.A. Di Lelia, The Wisdom of Ben SiTa: A New Translation
with Notes (AB, 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987).
Skurseh, 0. (ed.), The Annals of Q. Ennius (Oxford: Clarendon, 1985).
Smid, H., Protevangelium jacobi: A Commentary (Ap-ocrypha Novi
Testamenri, 1; Assen: Van Gorcum, 196$).
Speiser, E.A. (trans.), 'The Epic of Cilgamesh', in Pritchard (ed.), ANET,
pp. 72- 99.
Spiro, A., 'The Ascension of Phinehas', PAAjR 22 (1953), pp. .91- 1!4.
Spittler, R.P. (trans.), 'Testament of Job', in Charlesworth (ed.), OTP, pp.
1.829-<>8.
Stanton, V.H., The Gospels as Hisrorical Documents: Vol. 2, The Synoptic
Gospel. (Cambridge: Cambridge Univer•ity Press, 1909).
Stanton, G.N., 'On the Cbristology of Q', in B. Lindars and S.S. Smalley
(eds.), Chrisr and Spirit. in the New Testament (Festschrift C.F.D. Moule;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973), pp. 27-42.
Stead, F.H., 'Does the Original Collection of Logia (•Q•) Contain Prediction
of Our Lord's Resurrection?• Expositor 8!22 (1921), pp. 397-400.
Bibliography 189
Sceck, O.H. , Israel und das gewaltsame Gescbick dtr Propheten:

Untersudnmgen ZIIT Oberlie{erung d.s deuteronomischen Geschichtbild.s
im tllten Testament, Spiitjudentum und Urchris~ntum (WMANT, 23;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neultirchener Verlag, 1967).
Stein, R.H., 'A Short Not< on Mark XIV.28 and XVI.7', NTS 20 (1974),
pp. 445- 52.
Stirling, G.E., 'Mors philosophi: The Death of Jesus in Luke', HTR 94
(2001), pp. 38.l402.
Stone, M.E., 'Coherence aitd Inconsistency in the Apocalypses: The Case of
"The End" in 4 Eua',]BL 102 {1983), pp. 229-43.
-Fourth Ezra: A Commentary on the Book of Fourth Ezra (Hermencia.;
Minneapolis: Fonms, 1990).
Stra uss, D.F., A New Life of jesus (2 vols.; london: Williams & Norgatc,
lnd edn, 1879).
Streeter, B. H., •The Original Extent of Q', in Sanday (ed.), Studies in tht
Synoptic Problem, pp. 184-208.
--'The Literaty Evolution of the Gospels", in Sanday (ed.), Studies in the
Synoptic Problem, pp. 209-27.
- -The four Gospels: A Study of Origins (london: Macmillan, 1924).
St(obcl, A.• Untersuchungen zum e.schatologiscJum VerzOgerungsproblem:
auf Grund der spiitjudiseh·uuhrist/ichen Ges<hichte von Habakuk 2, 2((
(NovTSup, 2; Lciden: Brill, 1961).
Suggs, M.j., Wisdom, Chrisrology. and Law in Matthew's Gospel (Cambridge,
MA: Harvard Univer>ity Press, 1~70).
Tabor, J.D., Things Unutterable: Paul's Ascet1t to Heaven in Its Grtco-
Roman. Judaic, and Early ChrisUan Contexts (Studies in judaism;
Lanham, MD: Unive.rsiry Press of Americat 1986).
- -'"Returning to the Divinity": josephus's Portrayal of the Disappearances
of Enoch, Elijah, and Moses',JBL 108 (19891, pp. 225-38.
Talbert, C.H., 'The Concept of Jmmorta1s in Mediterranean Antiquity', }BL
94 {1975), pp. 419-36.
Taussig, H., 2nd F..A. Ca•telli (eds.), R<imagining Chrisli4n Origins (Festsehrift
B.L. Mack; VaUey Forge, PA: Trinity Press International, 1996).
Thackeray, H.St.]., R. Marcus, and L.H. Feldman (trans.), ]oseplms (LCL;
10 vols.; London: Heinemann; Cotmbridgc:, MA: Harvard Univmity Press,
1926- 1965).
Theissen, G., Sociology of FArly Palestinian Christianity {Philadelphia:
Forttess, 1978).
Todt, H.E., Der Men schensohn in der synoptischen Oberlieferungen
(Giitctsloh: G. Mohn, 1959; 2nd edn, 1963).
- The Son of MAn in the Synoptic Tradition (trans. D.M. &non; NTL:
london: SCM Press, 1965).
Torrey, C.C. {ed. and tran5.), The Livu of the Prophets: Guek Text and
Translation {SBLMS, J; Philadelphia: Society of Biblical literature, 1946).
Tromp,J. {ed. and uans.), The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with
Comme11tary (SvrP, 10; Lciden: E. J.llrill, 1993).
190 Bibliograp!')•
Trypanis, C.A. (ed. and t rans.), Callimachu.s: Aetia, lambi, Lyric Poems
(LCL; Camb<idge, MA: Harvard Unive.,ity Press, 1958).
Tuckett, C.M., 'On the Stratification of Q: A Response', in Kloppenborg and
Vaage (eds.), f.arly Christianity, Q and Jesus, pp. 213-22.
- 'The Son of Man in Q', in M.C. de Boer (ed.), From Jesus to John:
Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology (Fesuchrih M. de ]onge;
]Sl'.'TSup, 84; Sheffield: ]SOT Press, 1993), pp. 196-215.
---Q and the History of f.arly Christianity: Studies on Q (Peabody, MA:
Hendrickson, 1996).
- -'Q 22:28·30', in Horrell and Tuckecr (eds.), Christology, Controversy
and Community, pp. 99- 116.
-'The Son of Man and Daniel 7: Q and Jesus', io Liodemann (ed.), The
Sayings Source Q and the Historieal Jesus, pp. 371-94.
Uro, R., Sheep Among the Wolves: A Study on the MissiOn Instructions of
Q {Anoales Acadc:miae Sdcnriarom fc:nokae, Dissertationes Humanarultl
Litterarum, 47; Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedea.karemia, 1987}.
- 'jcesus-Hikc: ja yl6snousemus•, in ]eesus-liikkeestii kristinuskolui
(Helsinki: Yliopi<ropaino, 1995}, pp. 93- 1 11.
- -'Apocalyptic Symbolism and Social Identity in Q', in Uro (ed.), Symbols
and Strata, pp. 67- 118.
Uro, R. (ed.}, Symbols and Strata: Essays on the Sayings Gospel Q
(Publica dons of the Finnish Exegetical Society, 65; Helsinki: Finnish
Exegetical Society; GOttingeo: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1996).
Vaage, L..E., 'The Son o f Man Sayings in Q: Stratigraphical Location and
Significance•, io Kloppenborg and Vaage (eds.), Early Christianity. Q and
, ...... pp. 103-29.
VanderKam, ].C., 'Enoch Traditions in Jubilees and Other Seeond·Cenrury
Sources', SBLSP (1978), pp. 1.229- 51.
- ' Righteous One, Messiah, Choseo One, and Son of Man in I Enoch 37·
71 ', in Charlesworth (ed.), The Mestiah, pp. 169- 91.
-Enoch: A Man for All Generations (Columbia, SC: University of South
Carolina Press, 1995).
Van det Kwaak, H., 'Die Klage Uber Jerusalem (Matth. XXDI 37-39}', NovT
8 ( 1966), pp. 156-70.
Van £$broeck, M ., Aux origines de Ia Dormition de Ia Vierge: it.udes histo·
riques sur les traditions orientales (CoUe<:rcd Studies, 472; Brookfield, vr:
Variorum, 1995).
Van Segbroeck, .F~ C.M. Tuckett, G . Van Belle, and ]. Verheyden (eds.),
Tl>e Four Gospels 1992 (Festschrift Frans Neiryock; BETL, 100; 3 vols.;
Lcuven: Leuven University Press and Peeters, 1992).
Van Tilborg, S.,and P. Chatelion Coun.r,Jesus' APJ>N~ranusand Disappearanas
in Luke 24 (Biblicallnterprmtion Sedes, 45; Leideo: Brill, 2000}.
Vassiliadis, P., 'The Nature and Extent of the Q Document', NovT20 (1978},
pp. 49- 73.
-'The Original Ordec of Q: Some Residual Cases', in Delobel (ed.), Logia,
pp. 379-87.
Bibliography 191
Verheyden, j., 'The Conclusion of Q: Eschato logy in Q 22,.2 8·30', in

Lindemann (ed.), The Sayinrs Source Q and the Hiswrical Jesus, pp.
695-718.
- ·The Killing of the Prophets in Q and the Deuteronomistic Tradition:
Some Reflexions' (unpublished paper presemed at the Sociery of Biblical
Literature Annual Meeting, November 2002).
Verilhac, A.-M., TTA/t.EI AflPOI: Poesie funiraire (nPAfMATEIAI
THI AKAt.HMIAI AeHNON, 41 ; 2 vols.; Athens: fPAE/ON
t.HMOIIEYMATON THI AKAt.HM/AI A6HNON, 1978-1982).
VQgtlc~ A., ·ocr Spruch vom jonasz.eichen', in Das Evangtlium und d ie
£ vangelien: BtitrOge ZMr E.vangelien{orschung (DUsseldorf: Patmos,
1971), pp. 103-36.
Warmington, E.H. (ed. and trans.), Remains of Old Latin (LCL; 4 vols.;
London: Heinemann; Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ<r<iry Press, 1935-
1940).
Weinert, F.D., •Luke, the Temple and jesus• Saying about jerusalem's
Abandoned House (Luke 13:34-35)', CBQ 44 (1982), pp. 68-76.
Weill, B., A Manual of Introduction U> the New Tesl4ment (trans. A.JK.
Davidson; 2 vot..; New York: Funk & Wagnalls, 1887-89).
Wcllhausen, J., Einltitung in die ersten drtti Evangelien (Berlin: Georg
Reimer, 2nd edn, 1911).
Wilcktns, U., 'Der Ursprung der Oberlieferung der Erscheinungen des
Auferstanden: Zu_r tr<Jdicions-geschichtJichm Analyse von 1 Co 15,1-11 ',in
W. Joest and W. Pannenberg (eds.), Doi{"'I und DenkJrrukturen {Festschrift
E. Schlink; GOttiogen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1963), pp. 56-95.
- 'Jesusiiberlieferung und Chrisruskerygma: zwei Wege orchristlicher Oher·
lieferungsgeschichte', Theologia Viatorum 10 (1965-66), pp. 310-39.
- 'The Tradjtion··History of the Resurrection of jesus\ ln C.F.D. Moule
(ed.), The Si/{Tiificance of the Resurrection for Faith in jesus Christ (SBT,
218; London: SCM, 1968), pp. 51-76.
Wilmart, A., and E. Tisscrant (eds.}, 'Fragments Grecs et Latins de J•£vangile
de Barthelemy', RB 10 (1913), pp. 161- 90, 321-68.
Winston, D., The Wisdt>m of Solomon (AB, 43; Garden City, NY: Doubleday,
1979).
Wintermute, O.S. (trans.), 'Apocalypse of Elijah', in Charlesworth (ed.),
OTP, pp. 2. 721- 53.
Wintermute, O.S. (tra ns.), 'Jubilees', in Charleswo rth (ed.), OTP, pp.
2.35- 142.
Wright, N.T., Christian Origins and the Question of God: Vol. I. The New
T.stament and the People of God (Minneapolis: Forore,., 1992).
- -'Resurrection in Q?', in Horrell and Tuckett (cds. ), Cbristology,
Controversy and Community, pp. 85- 97.
Wright W. (ed. and trans.), Contributions to the Apocryphal Li<erature of
th< New Testament (London: Williams & Norgate, 1865).
Zdle~ D., Kommenl4r ""' Logienquelle (SKKNT, 21; Stuttgart: Kaoholisches
Bibelwerk, 1984).
192 Bibliography
--'Entriickung zur Ankun ft als Menschensohn (Lk 13, 34f.; 11, 29f.)', in
A Cause de I'Evangue: Etudes sur ks Synoptiques et /es Actes (Festschrift
J. Dupont; LD, 123; Paris: Cerf, 1985), pp. 513-30.
- 'Jesus, Q und die Zukunft lsraels', in A. Lindemann (ed.), The Sayings
Source Q and the His<orical jesus, pp. 351-69.
Zwiep, A.W._, 'The Text of the Ascension Narratives (luke 24.50-3; Acts
1.1-2, 9-11)', NTS 42 (1996), pp. 219-44.
~T'he A<cension of the Messiah in Lukan Christo/ogy (NovTSup, 8 7;
Leiden: Brill, 1997).
- ·Assumptus est in caelum: Rapture and Hea\'enly Exaltation in E.arly
judaism and Luke-Acts', in F. Avemarie and H. Lichtenberger (cds.),
Aufnsuhung - R.eturret.tion: The Four-th Durham·TU-bingen Re$~4rt:h
Symposium (Tubingen: Mo hr Siebeck, 2001), pp. 323-49.
INDEX OF REFERENCES
Hebrew Bible and 2 Kings 110.1 162

Septuagint 2.1 74, 116, 146 117.26 13, 33, 36,
2.1 -12 67 41, 103, 108, 113,
Gencsi$ 2.1-18 « , 74 114, 115, 120, 129,
5 68, 81 2.2 116 168
5.21-24 68, 81 2.4 116 146 113
5.22 109, 110 2.6 116
5.24 67, 69, 70, 74, 2. 9 67, 109, 116 Provnbs
82, 88, 89, 109 2.9-10 82 1.24-28 33
19 128, 143 2.9-11 69, 116 1.28 40
39 125 2.10 67, 109, 116 16.16 101
2.11 67, 74, 109, 116
Exodus 2.12 43, 92, 109_, 116 lsaioh
6.25 81 2.15 116 26.19 113
2.17 89 29. 18-19 113
Numbers 35.$-6 113
25. 1-13 81 2 Chronicles 42.6-7 113
24 97, 98 57.1-2 82
Deuteronomy 24.17-24 120 61 112
2 1.22-23 110 24.18 120 61.1 113
32.11 10 1 24.18-25 1 63.11 152
34.1 -8 75 24.19-23 45, 9 7
34.5 75 24.20 1, 101, 103 )trtrnioh
24.20-22 89, 97 12.7 114
j udges 24.21 101 22.5 95
19-20 81 24.23-24 1, 101
20.28 81 24.24 1 Danid
7 27, 73, 132, 135,
Psalms 136, 137, 138, 140,
2 52, 89, Ill 142
17.8 101 7.13 113
1 Kings 22 18 7.13-14 25, 140
17.17-24 146, 148 36.7 101 7.18 140
19.14 44 41 18 7.22 140
19.19-21 116 69 18 10. 12 137
109 18 12.1 137
110 25 12.2-3 52
194 Index of Referenets
Jonah 4 82, 83 42 35, 108

2.2 148 4.7 82 42.1·2 16, 101
2.7 146 4.7·19 83 42.2 33
3.4 147 4.10 81, 82 46.3 115
3.10 147 4.1().1I 109, 121 48.2 72
4 148 4.10.14 110 48.5 116
4.10.19 88 48.6 72
Habakkuk 4.11 110 49.3-4 39
2.3 114, 115 4.14 81 51 .3 39
2.3-4 114, 115 4.15-18 133 51.4 133
2.5 114 4.16 133 60.10 73
4.16·17 84 60.23 72
Zechttriah 4.20-5.5 133 61.4 133
1.1 45,97 4-5 88, 110 62 116, 140
12.10 25 5 121 62.1 140
5.1 82, 121 62.5·6 41
Malachi 5. 1·5 84, 109, 111 62.7 72
3.23-24 75 5.2 92 62.11-13 140
4.5 78 62.14 73, 140
Sirach 70 73
1.15 95, 101 70. 1 73
Apocrypha 15.7 108 70.1-2 72
17.7 137 70-71 43, 53, 72,
2 Esdras 24.10.12 101 73, 112
14.48 80 24.11 38, 101 71 73,112,134,153
44.16 69 71.1 72
Touil 48.9 69 71.5 72
12.15 137 48.9-10 75 71.14 43, 44, 72,
48. t O 78 112,115
Wisdom of Solomon 49.14 69, 72, 74 71.16 73
1.16-5.23 82 71.16-17 115
2-5 2, 52, 66, 83, 2 Maccabees 72~2 67,71
84, 109, 115, 121, 7 52 81.5-6 67, 158
132, 133, 134, 142, 81.6 67, 71
151, 168 8:>-90 71
2.9· 10 83 P$eudepigrapha, Dead 85-90 44, 71, 75,
2.10 133 Sea Scrolls, Philo 78
2.10.20 82 andjosephw 87.3-4 53, 71
2.12 133 89.51-52 44
2.13 84 1 (Ethiopic) Emx;h 89.52 75
2.16 84 14 73 89.56 101
2.17-20 92 37-71 72, 132, 133, 90.20.27 79
2.18 84, 133 134, 140, 142, 149 90.31 75, 78
2.23-3.9 111 38.1-6 140 93.8 40
3.2-4 133 39.5 133 94.5 40
3.8 84 39.6 115 103 52
Itukx of References 195
104.1 137 6.26 75 Josephus, jewish War

106.7-8 72 13 132 6.300-309 120
14 67, 80
I Q G<I7U!Sis 14.8·9 80 Jubilees
Apocryphon 14.13 80 4 145
(1Q20J )4.9 77 4.21-23 71
2.19·23 72 4.23·26 72
4 Maccabees
2 (SyrU.c) Baruch fJO$Sim 111 Liber Anliquif4tum
passim 80, 81 Biblicarum
8.1·2 101 4Q521 1.16 69
13.3 81 passim 113 48.1 77, 81
25.1 81
30.1 8.9 IIQ Melchiudek Li~s of the Prophets
41.3-4 101 (11Q13) 10.2-3 148
76 67 passim 113 10.2-6 148
76.1·5 81 10.3 147
76.5 81 Coptic Apocalypse of 10.10·11 147
Elijah
2 (Sia11011ic) Enoch passim 78, 79, 80 Philo, De Abrahamo
paJSim 67 4.1-6 79 17-18 70
3-38 67 4.6-19 78 l7· 19 70
22.8 72 4.7 79 19 70
36. 1·2 67 4.19 79
67 67, 72, 158 5.32 79 Philo, De mUIIWone
67. 1-3 71, 158 nominum
67.3 67 de]ona 34-38 70
68.5 67 71 148
71-72 81 95 148 Philo, De sacri/iciis
71.29 81 .99 148 Abe/is et Caini
71.37 81 103· 104 147 3.8 76
72 81 157-196 148
184 148 Philo, De vita Mosis
3 (Hebrew) Entx;h 1.158 75
p..sim 73, Ill Greek Apocalypse of 2.291 76
1.9 72 Ezra
6-7 53 6-7 80 Pb.llo, Quaestiones in
6-10 72 Genesin
12.5 72 Josephus, Antiquities 1.86 70, 74, 76
1.85 70, 74
4 Ezra 3.96 74 Psalms of Solomon
passim 75, 77, 80, 4.323 76-77 7.1·2 101
132 4.326 74, 76, 110 17.8 101
1.30 101 9.28 70, 74 17.26 139
4.10 80 9.214 147 36.7 101
6.25·26 77, 92
196 lndn of Re{erenus
Testament of 10.15 106 26.26 96

Abrahamt rec. A 10.23 113 26.64 96
13 90 10.23-24 107 27.50 1.56
20 88 10.28 107, 121 28 26, 52
20.1 0-12 158 10.32 107, 135 28.2-4 159
20.10-14 51 10.34 107 28.9-10 171
10.38 I 28.16 25
·restament of 11.9 106 28.18·20 23
Abraham, rec. B 11.11 106
7.19-8.3 50 11.22 106~ 7 MMk
11 90 11.24 105~6 1.7 112- 13
14 88 12.31 107 1.8 113
14.6-8 51 12.40 22, 144 1.11 166
13.17 106 1.24 166
Testament of Ashtr 17.1·9 88 2.10 161
6.4-5 88 17.3 78 2.28 161
17.5 88 5.7 166
Testament of Job 17.8 88, 92, 109 8.31 22, 163
17.6 85 17.9 22 8.38 135
18.1 85 17.20 107 9.2-10 76, 88
39-40 168 18.10 137-38 9.2- 13 166
39.8-11 85 18.13 106 9.4 78
39.8-40.3 122 18.22 107 9.7 88, 166
39. 11 109 19.28 107, 139 9.8 88, 92, 109
39.11 -12 85,93 23 35-36, 98 9.9 22
39.12 89 23.1 98 9.9-10 163
40.3 109, 111 23.12 99 9.11 78
52 158 23.26 106 9.12 161
52- 53 88 23.34-36 31 9.13 161
53.8 85 23.37 95 9.31 22, 163
23.37-38 36 10.34 22, 163
23.37-3.9 31, 37, .94 10.45 21
New Testamenr 23.38 95- 96 11.1 -11 33
23.39 36, 96, 98, 11.9 13
Matthew 106 12.18-27 Ill
3.9 106 24.1-2 98 13.26 43
3.11 41,113 24.21 126 13.32 166
5.18 107 24.23 126 14.28 159, 163
5.26 106 24.29 107 14.51-52 159
5.44 106 24.40 107 14.62 25, 43
5.45 11 5 24.45 124 14.64 113
6.25 106 24.47 106 15.21 13
6.29 106 24.48 125 15.33 158
7.l3 107 25.14 125 15.37 156
8.10 106 25.19 126 15.39 166
8.11 107 25.31 139 16.1-8 3, 50, 52,
197
88, 123, 153-54, 12.42 "124 23.39-43 92

159-60, 162-65, 12.44 106 23.46 156
167, 169-70 12.45 125 23.47 115
16.2 158 12.46 96 24 52
16.2-4 157 12.51 107 14.4·5 !59
16.3 157 12.57 115 24.6-7 23
16.4 154-55 12.59 106 24.12 171
16.5 161 13- 14 99 24.24 171
16.5 -6 159 13.22 45, 98 24.25·27 23
16.6 3, 163 13.24 107 24.30-31 23
16.6-7 171 13.28 100 24.34 153, 160, 163,
16.7 159, 163-65 13.29 96, 107 171
(16.9-20] 160 13.31·33 12, 34, 45, 24.44 23
98, 100 24.45 23
Lulu 13.33 98 24.46 23
1.19 137 13.34 95 24.49 116
1.33 160 13.34-35 31, 32, 24.50-53 86
3.8 106 94-96, 100 24.51 86, 88, 116
3.16 113 13.35 36, 95- 96, 106 14.52-53 67
6.22 140 14.11 99
6.27 106 14.24 107 Sayings Gosptl Q
7.9 106 14.27 1 3.7·9 131
7.20 11 3 15.7 106, ItS 3.8 22, 97, 104-05,
7.26 106 15.10 107 147
7.28 106 15.27 96 3.8-9 113, 131
9.28-36 88 16.1 7 107 3.16 112-1 3
9.30 78 16.19·31 88, 111 3.16-17 21, 33, 112,
9.34 88 16.22 89 119, 1J1
9.36 88 16.23 90 3.17 113
9.51 86, 88, 98 17.4 107 4 170
10.12 106 17.6 107 4.3 113, 166
10.14 10~7 17.22 38, 127, 129 4.9 101, 113, 166
10.24 106 17.28·29 128 6.20-23 112
11.9 10~7 17.30 41 6.22 130, 136- 37,
11.37 45,98 17.31-32 128 140-42
11.47-48 45 17.34 107 6.22-23 12, 105,
11.49 34, 96-97 19.17 126 130..32, 134, 138,
11.51 106 19.1 9 126 141-42, 149
11.53 45, 98 19.26 107 6.23 12, 45, 105,
12.4 107 19.43 96 119, 130, 141
12.5 107 21.7 116 6.27 104-06, 132
12.8 107 22 6 6.27-33 105
12.16·21 lOS 22.19-20 20, 23 6.35 115, 130, 132
12.20 88 22.24-30 21,107 6.37 140
12.22 106 22.28 139 6.42 103
1.2.27 106 22.69 153 6.46-49 119
198 Endex of References
6.47-49 138 11.30 136, 141, l2.3S-40 U6

7.9 104, 106, 148 14445,149 12.39 126
7.9-10 107 11.31-32 22, 103, 12.39-40 21, 119,
7.18·19 21, 113 140, 145-47 124-27, 130, 136,
7.18-23 41, 112 132 144, 146-47 141, 149, 165, 169
7.19 112-13, 115 11.37-52 129 12.39-46 129
7.20 113 11.39-44 98 12.40 13, 113, 126-
7.22 22 11.44 115 27, 129
7.22·23 21 11.46 31 12.42 129
7.23 113 11.46-48 98 12.42-46 115,119,
7.25 103 11.47 115 124-27, 130, 136,
7.26 105-06 11.47-51 12, 16 141, 149, 165,169
7.27 45, 103 11.47-48 45 12.43 33
7.28 105-06 ! 1.49 14-15, 34,38, 12.44 106, 126
7.31-35 1, 12, 14, 41, 97, 102 12.45 127
119, 131, 145 11.49-50 38 12.46 125, 129
7.33-34 15 11.49-51 1, 14-15, 12.51 107
7.34 103, 136, 141 21, 31-36, 41-43, 12.S8 140
7.35 14, 23, 102, 45, 47, 96-100, 12.59 106
115, 130, 170 102, 119, 13Q--31, 13.24 98, 107
9.58 136, 141 142 13.24-29 99
9.59-60 116 !1.50 IS, 3S, liS 13.25-27 136
9.60 22 11.50-51 ItS 13.26-27 98
[9.61-62) 116 11.51 15, 38, 42, 45, 13.27 131
10.3 102-{)3 89-90, 97, 101-{)7, 13.28 99, 100, 131
10.10.11 142 115 13.29 99, 100, 107,
10.12 104-{)7 11.S2 31, 98 125
10.13 131, 147 12.2-3 128, 142 13.28-29 99-100,
10.13-14 107, 148 12.2-12 98, 138 11.8, 130, 148
10.13·15 101, 138 UA 107 13.28-30 22, 32, 98
10.14 105-07 !VI-S 121-22 13.34 15, 38-42,
10.15 131 l2.S 107, 131 43-44, !OQ--02,
10.16 13().-31, 142 12.8 107, 136 114,117-18
10.21-22 21, 25, 26, 12.8-9 21, 24, 132, 13.34-35 2-3, 12-14,
28, 102, llS-19, 134-38, 141-42, 16, 21, 31-48,
130, 142, 166, 168, 149 94-120, 121, 123,
170 12.8-10 119 125- 26, 129-30,
10.23-24 130, 142 12.9 131 138, 142, 149, 165,
10.24 106, ll5 12.10 107, 136,141 167-69
11 14 12.11-12 137-38, 13.35 2, 16-17, 19,
11.19 140 140, 142 21, 32-33, 35-37,
11.20 119 12.22 104-{)6 39-40, 4244,
11.29 144-45 12.27 105-06 46-48, 51, 74, 88,
11.29-30 2, 22, 124, 12.28 22 92-95, 98, 1OQ--01,
143-49 12.33 22 103-04, 106,
11.29-32 44 12.33-34 131 108- 10, 112- 21,
Index of Referenus 199
123- 25, 127- 29, 19.18 125 8.39 so, 82, 88

131, 134, 136, 143, 19.19 126 9.36 79
146, 164, 16lHi9 19.20 125 13.24·25 1 12
[14.11 [ 99, 131 19.22 126 20.28 20
14.16-24 99 19.22-24 126
14.21·23 99 19.26 97, 107 Romans
[14.24) 97 22.28 139-40 1.3-4 52, 111, 162,
14.26·27 132, 138 22.28, 30 13, 21, 171
14.27 I, 12- 13, 19, 124, 126, 130, 132, 1.4 153
131, 139 134, 138-40, 149 4.24-25 20
14.34-35 131 22.30 22, 45, 139-40 8.34 52, 111, 151,
15.7 105-QO 162
16.17 107 John
17 38, 126, 128-30, 1.26·27 112 1 Corinthians
132, 134, 141, 144, 1.33 112 15.3 20
165, 170 3.10 160 15.3-5 25, 28,
17.4 107 12.32-34 160 15.3-7 47, 123
17.6 107 19.30 156 15.4 163
(17.22] 33, 37- 38, 20-21 52 IS.S 160, 171
124, 127 20.3· 10 171 15.5-8 3, 52, I 53,
17.23 103, 127- 28 20.12 159 163, 165
17.23-24 21, 33, 20.14·18 171 1s.9·11 165
124, 126-29 21.20-23 90
17.23.37 149 2 Corinthiam
17.24 113, 127- 28, Acts 12.2 82
132, 136, 145 1.1 -11 86 12.2-3 50
17.26 113, 129, 136, 1.2 86, 88, 116 12.4 82
145 1.3 so
17.26-27 21, 128-29 1.8 116 Galatians
17.26-30 13, 126 1.9 86 1 26
[17.28·29] 128 1.9-11 86, 116 1.15-16 25
17.30 21, 41, 113, 1.11 86, 88, 116, 3.13 110
129, 136, 145 129, 163
17.33 22, 131-32, 1.22 86, 88 Philippians
138 2.22-24 24 2.6·11 151, 171
17.34 107 2.23·24 23, 160 2.8·9 151, 154
17.34-35 124, 126, 21.31-35 163 2.10 160
129, 131, 143 2.31-36 52, Ill
17.37 126, 128- 29 2.33 87, 111 1 Thessalonians
19 12+-26, 130, 141, 3.14- IS 115 1.9-10 162~3. 171
149, 165, 170 4.10 163 1.10 129
19.12 33, 129 4.10- 11 23 4.15-17 88
19.12· 13 125 5.31 87,111,160 4.17 82, 143
19.15 33, 126 7.52 IS, 114
19.16 125 7.55·56 153 I Timothy
19.17 126 7.56 153 3.16 152-53
200 Imkx of References
Hebrews 112-13 148 Coptic Enoch

1.3 152, 154 Apoayphon
2.9 152 Midrash on Psalms passim 79-80
2.10 152 26.7 148
10.37-38 114 De.cent of Christ int<~
11.5-6 69 Pirke Rabbi Eliezar Hell
13.20 152 33 148 10.26 92
Revelation jerusalem T~lmud, Diddche

1.7 43 Sanhedrin 12.1 36
3.21 140 11.5 2a 148
11.3-13 77- 79 Diddscalia
11.5 78 Targum Neofiti Apostolorum
11.5-6 79 O.ut. 30.12· 13 148 5.14 158
11.6 77- 78
11.7-13 50 Targum Pseudo- Gospel of Peter
12.1-6 89 jonathan 5.l.Hi.21 158
12.5 82, 89 Gen. 5.26 72, 73, 112 5.19 154-56, 159
12.13-17 89 O.ut. 33.21 78 6.22 158
10 52
10.39-40 159
Rabbinic and Early Christian
Targumjc Writings Writing• Hermas, s;,ilitudes
9.27.3 88
'Aggad.rt Beresbit 1 Clement
67 78 9.3 69 Hermas, Vuior~
2.2.7 88
Mishnah., Berakhot Acts of john
5.5 89 97 156 History of joseph
97-102 154, 156 {><1$sim 80
Derek Erett Zuta 102 156
1.18 66, 146 111-15 90 lrenaeus, Advtrsus
Metastasis 90 haereses
Deuwonomy Rabbah 3.16.6 156
17.17 78 Apo<alypse of Paul 3.17.4 156
passim 89- 90
Genesis Rabbah Leontius o( Neapolis,
1 69 Augustine, TrtUta~s Life of Symeon the
98.11 148 on the C<!spel of Fool
john passim 91- 92
lAmeniPiions Rabbah 124.2 90
Proem, 31 148 Narrative of joseph of
Clement of Arimathea
Mekhilta, Pisha Alexandria. 4 92
1.80-2 148 Str<~rnata
103-05 148 6.132.2 75, 155
Index of References 201
Protevangelium (J[ Cassius Dlo, Roman 18.432 62

james Histo ry
9.9·9 89 56.42 51 Homer, Ody<Sry
24.9 89 11.321-325 62
Charicon, Chaereas
QumioM of and C.llirhoe Titus livius., Ab urbe
Bartholomew 1.4-5 61 condita
1.6·7 !54, 156-57 3.3 61, 88-89,122, 1.16.1-2 56
1.7 !57 !59, 166 1.16.3 57
'1.8·9 157 3.4 61 1.16.4 56
1.20 157 1.16·6-7 57
Cicero, tk RePublica
1.16 55-57 Lucian, Fut~erals
Gr«k and Latin 2.17 51 13 64
Writings
Diogenes Laenius, Lucian, The Passing of
Al'thiopi$ Lives of Famous P~egrinus
passim 59 Philosophers 39 58, 92, I 09
7.66-68 54
Amoninus LiberaJis, Ovid, Fasti
MetamorpiJOu-s Diodorus Siculus, 2.487 56-57
1.5 62 8ibliotheca historica 2.493-495 56
8.7 62 4.38-39 58 2.497 56
13.6 62 2.509 56
25.4 62 Dionysius of
33.3-4 59, 62~3. Halicamas:sus, Ovid, Met4morphoses
122 Antiquit.ates 8.814 56-57
37.5 62~3 romanae 8.816·828 57- 58, 70
40.4 62 2.56 54, 56 8.824 56
2.63 54, 56-57, 62 8.829·851 57
Apollodorus, 9.266-271 58, 70
Bibliotheca Ennius, A.nnales 14.805-85 I 53
e.1.9 62 1.54·55 SS-57 14.816· 817 56
2.7.7 58 1.100 57 15.1243-1254 51
3.4.3-4 62 1.106·11 55, 57
3.5.3 62 Pausanias, Ducr'iption
3.13.5-6 62 Herodian, Hisrory of ofGmxe
the Roman f.mpire 1.20.3 62
Arrian, Anabasis 4.2 51 3.18.11 58
7.27.3 54, 62 3.19.5 58
Herodotus, Hiswries 10.29.4 62
Callimachus, 'The 4.14 59
Deification of 4.95 54 Philostratus, Life of
ArsinoC, Apolloniwi of Tyana
passim 5~o. 93 Homer, Iliad 8.29-30 54
Diegesis $9 88.88-88 62
202 Index of References
Plurorc.h, Numa [Piurorch,) Consolatio Ancient Inscriptions

2.1· 3 56-57 ad Apollonium
2.2 89 17 82 GIG 2, 3398 51
18 64 GIG 3, 6227 65
Plutarch, Romulus 34 64-65 IG 2, 12629 65
27 54, 56, 89, 92, IG 5.1 ,1186 64
109 Servius, Commentary IG 14, 1729 65
27- 28 56 on the Aeneid
28 55-59, 122 3.402 58, 89
6.777 59
Plutarch, Theseus
20 62
INDEX OF MODERN ALmiORS
Abcgg, M.G. Jr. 66 Casto~ G.D. 6-7

Adle~ W. 68 Catchpole, D.R. 32-34, 36- 37,
A.llison, D.C. 20, 33,37-38, 96, 128- 29, 134-38, 144, 146
112, 114-16, 118, 125, 127- 28, Cavallin, H.C.C. 52-53, 85
138, 148 Cazzaniga, I. 59
Andersen, F.l. 71 Celoria, F. 59, 62-63
Attridge, H.W. 152 Charles, R.H. 78, 89
Aune,D.~ 78-79,89 Chetix, P. l 56
Chow, S. 143-44, 146, 148
Babbitt, F.C. 64-65 Christ, F. 32, 34, 39-40, 95, 98
Bacon, B.W. 32 Cohen, A. 66
Bartle<, J.V. 7 Collins, A. Yarbto 26, 52, 77,
Bauckham, R.J. 79 161-66
Baye~ H.F. 145 Collins, j.j. 27, 68, 72- 73, 113,
8egg, c. 74, 76-77 132-36, 138, 140, 142
Berge~ K. 66, 104 Colson, F.H. 70, 76
Bertram, G. 154 Coun<t, P. Chatelion 61, 86-87,
Bid<e.mann, E. 5()-51, 55- 56, 61, 163
88, 153-54, 16()-65 Croano, j.S. 1 16
Black, M. 72, 77-79 Crossan, J.D. 123, 130, 161,
Bolt, P.G. 51, 55, 63, 166 163-64
Borgen, P. 70, 72, 74-76
Borg~ R. 68 Daley, B.E. 9()-91
Boring, M.E. 25, 32, 34, 37, 139 Davies, W.O. 138
BOttrich, C. 71 Dean·Otring, M. 49
8ou$$et, W. 49, 51, 68, 78 dojonge, H.J. 135, 137
Brock, S.P. 85 Dibelius, M. 9
Bultmann, R. 32,...J6, 40, 97- 98, Di Lelia, A.A. 69
102, 119, 135- 36, 144, 160, 163 Dupont, J. 140
Bundy, W.E. 7
Burkitt, F.C. 6-7 Edwards, R.A. 1 1, 25, 46, 143-44
Bunmann, W. 7, 12, 9S Ehrman, B.D. 20, 86
Elliott, j.K. 80, 89-92, 156-57
Caragounis, C.C. 73 Evans, C.F. 53, 154, 162
Cacpinelli, F.G. 20
Cary, E. 56 Farm~ W.R. 7
Casey, M. 27, 73 Farre~ A.M_. 7
204 lndn of Modern Authors
Fitzrnye~ j .A. 88 Holbl, G. 60

Fleddennann, H.T. 4, 32, 34, Holleman, ]. 53
95- 96, 112, 120-21, 125, 135, Horsley, R. 139, 148
137, 139-42, 146 Hultgren, A. 11-14, 19- 20,33
Focant, C. 153 Hurrado, L.W. 3, 18- 21,47, 171
Franklin, E. 7
Isaac, E. 73
Garland, D.E. 32, 36, 95-96,98,
116 jacobson, A.D. 4, 10, 16-18,
Georgi, D. 83-84, 133, lSI, 154 25, 32, 34-36, 38, 45, 97-99,
Goold, G.P. 61 112, 117- 18,124,136,139-41,
Goulder, M .D. 88 144-45
GraBe~ E. 43 Jirvinen, A. 134
Green, j.B. 20 Jeremias, J. 153
Grelot, P. 68 johnson, L.T. 153
Gressmann, H. 68 John.on, S.R. 98
Grobe!, K. 88 JUiicher,j. 6, 157-58
Grundrnann, W. 39, 88 Junod, E. 156
Grzybek, E. 59
Gundry, R.H. 95 Kaestli, J.-D. 90. 156-57
Kasemann, E. 10
Haaeker, K. 75-76 Kirk, A.K. 14, 16, 32, 47, 126,
Haenchen, E. 32, 34-35, 96-98 139-40, 156
Halperin, D.j. 49 Klijn, A.F.J. 81
Hamilton, N.Q. 161-<>6 Kloppenborg, J.S. 2-11, 13,
Har~D.R.A. 27,135- 36, 147 15-20, 22- 26, 28--2.9 , 32-34,
Hannon, A.M. 58, 64 45-47, 98- 99, 103, 112-14, 117,
Harll3ek, A. 8, 32-34, 43, 124, 120, 124-28, 130-32, 139-45,
!55 147-49, 154, 170-71
Harringto n, OJ. 81 Knox, W.L. 7
Haufe, G. 43, 67-<)8, 87, 111, Koch, D.-A. 114
153, 161-<)2, 169 Kolareik, M. 82-83
Hawkins, j .C. 8, 95 Kraft, R.A. 68
Hays, R.B. 114-15 Krame~ S.N. 57
Hayward, R. 81 Krueger, D. 91
Hazzard, R.A. 60 KiimmeJ, W.G. 43
Head, P.M. 155-56 Kvanig, H.S. 68
Hengel, M. 8
Hill, A.E. 75 Lambrecht, J. 135
Himmelfarb, M. 49-50, 68, 75 Laufen, R. 112
Hirsch, E. 7 Liebermann, S. 72
Hock, R.F. 89 Undars, B. 27, 111, 154
Hoffmann, P. 2, 11,16-18, 25- 28, Lips, H. von 17
32-34, 36, 39-42, 95-96, Lohfink, G. 49-51, 53-58, 62,
98--103, 116, 119- 20, 135, 66-<>8, 72, 74-76, 80, 82-83,
137-39, 144, 160 86-89, 151, !53, 156-<>0, 163
Index of Modern A11!hors 205
Lohmeyer, E. 151, 154, 164 Peek, W. 51, 64--65

Longenecker, R.N. 20 Perrin, N. 25, 27
Ludemann, G. 161, 16~5 Pesch, R. 160, 162, 164--65
Liihrmann, D. 16, 18, 26, 32, 45, Pfeiffet, R. 59--60
69, 126,128,139,144 Picard, J.·C. 85
Luz, U. 138 Piper, R.A. 32, 34, 121, 128
Plevnik, j. 143, 165
MacCormack, S.C. 51 Pokorny, P. 8
Mad, B.L. 18, 28-29, 45, 161 Polag, A. 8, 26, 36, 116, 137
Malherbe, A.J. 143 Price, S.R.F. 51
Manns, F. 91
ManS<>n, T.W. 9, 32, 36,41, 116, Rabbinowi<Z,). 78
124 Ramsay, W.M. 8
Mara, M.G. 155- S6 Reardon, B.P. 61-62
Marcus1 R. 70, 74 Reng,storf, K. 24
Martin, R.P. 151 Robinson, F. 80, 91
Marxscn, W. 163--64 Robinson, j.M. 2-3, 16-"17,
McCant, J.W. 155- 56 26-28, 31-32, 35, 38, 41, 45-
McKnight, S. 128 46, 52,96-101, 103, 112- 13,
McadO<'S, E.P. 8, 16, 33 120-21 , 124-28, 132, 135- 36,
Meeks, W.A. 75 139, 141,143, 171
Merklein, H. t60, 164 Rohde, E. 59
Metzger, B.M. 96 Rosenstiehl, J.·M. 78
Michaci,J.H. 32, 34, 129 Ryden, L. 91- 92
Miller, R.J. 16, 34, 83-84
Mimouni, S.C. 90 Sato, M. 4, 15, 19, 104, 144
Morenz, S. 80 Schafer, P. 75-76
Mounce, W.O. 152- 53 Schiifcrdiek, K. 90
Myllykoski, M. 45, 120 Schenke, L. 163-64
Schmiedel, P. W. 32
Neirynck, F. 4, 32, 34, 104, 107 Schmidt, D. 144-45
Nk kelsburg, G.W.E. 51-52, 71, Schmitt, A. 49-50, 68-69, 74,
82, 84, 130, 132- 33 82-$3
Nilsson, M. 58 Schmitt, G. 147
Nisetich, F. 59--60 Schulz, s. 14, 16-1 8, 32, 34 , 36,
Nolland, J. 46, 88 39, 95, 99, 103~4, 108, 116,
Niitzcl, J.M. 79 121, 126-28, 137, 141, 145
Schiirmann, H. 26-27, '126, 144
Padilla, M.W. 58 Seeley, D. 12- 14, 82- 83
Palmer, D.W. 155, 157- 59 Scg.l, A.F. 49, 51
Papanikolaou, A. 61 Scvenich·Bax, E. 17, .16, 41
Parsons, M.C. 54, 67, 86-87, 157, Shapiro, H.A. 58
163 Siegen, F. 147
Paulsen, H. 163 Skehan, P. W. 69
Pea...on, B.A. 79-80 Skua;ch, 0. 55
Pease, A.S. 53-55 Smid, H. 89
206 Index of Modern Authors
Speiser, E.A 57 Vaage, L.E. 5, 25, 26

Spiro, A. 81 Van dec Kwaak, H. 33, 34, 36-37,
Spittler, R.P. 85 96, 11 6
Sranton, G.N. 19 Van Esbroec:k, M. 90
Sunoon, V.H. 7 Van T ilborg, S. 61, 86-87, 163
Stead, F.H. 12 VanderKam, j.C. 68, 71 - 73, 133
Steck, O.H. I, 10-11, 16, 32, 34, Vassiliadis, P. 32, 124
36, 38-39, 42, 45, 95-96, 101, Verheyden, J. 16, 99, 1.39
103, 108, 116-17, 119, 141 Yerilhac, A.-M. 6~5
Scein, R.H. 163~4 Vogde, A. 143
Stirling, G.E. 20
Stone, M .E. 80 Weinert, F.D. 95
Strauss, D.F. 34 WeiB, B. 6
Streeter, B.H. 7- 9, 32 Wellhausen, J. 8-9
Strobel, A. 114-15 Whitaker, G.H. 76
Suggs, M.J. 32, 34-35, 40, 95, Wilckeno, U. 10, 165
102 Wilmarc, A !57
Winston, D. 82-83
Tabor, J.D. 49, 74, 76 Wintccmucc, O.S. 71, 78
Talbert, C.H. 54, 62, 76 Wright, N.T. 7, 22, 144
Tha<keray, H.St.J. 76 Wright, W. 91
Theissen~ G. 133
lisserant, E. 157 Zeller, D. 2, 11, 33, 36, 40,
TOdt, H.E. 9-10, 24-27, 44, 135, 43-44, 46-47,66,74, 110-12,
144 116-17, 120, 123, 139-40,
Torrey, C.C. 147 143-46, 149, 168
Tromp, j . 75 Zwicp, A. W. 49- 50, 53- 55, 66,
Trypanis, C.A. 60 68~9. 71-74, 76-78, 80-82,
Tuckett, C.M. 3-4, 12-18,26, 86-87, 89, 116, 153-54, 157,
32-34, 36, 38, 42, 98, 112, 163
lZ0-21, t28, 134, 139-42,
144-46, 149
Uro, R. 22, 26, 33-34, 36, 46,

123, 125, 127- 29, 134, 136,
16~1. 163

(Library of New Testament Studies Volume 338) Daniel A. Smith - The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in The Sayings Gospel Q-T & T Clark (2006) PDF

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Оригинальное название

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

(Library of New Testament Studies Volume 338) Daniel A. Smith - The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in The Sayings Gospel Q-T & T Clark (2006) PDF

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

LffiRARY OF N EW TESTAMEN T STUDIES

Published by T&T Clark lnternatiooal

All rights reserved. No port of this publication may be <<produced or

Bci.Uh ubruy Cataloguing-in-Publication Dara

Typeset by Free Range Book Design & Production Limited

Feast of the Ascension, 2.5 May 2006

Con8NT Coniecr:.tnea biblica, New Testament

AliBREVIATIONS OF ANOENT SOURCES

'Ag. Ber. Aggadat Bereshit

Ovid, Metam. Ovid, Metamorphosu

1. According 10 convention, Q texts J.tc referenced here-jn :.ccording to l..uk.ao

murder of prophets by Israel, so that if Q depic:ts jesus a$ a rejected and

J. tkrdn, diKWsiom of the roconsuu«ion of Q begin from J.M. Robinson. P.

In order ro offer some corroboration of the hypothesis that Q uses a$Sump-

5. S« L W. Hurtado, Lord Jesus Christ: Drvotionto Jesus in Earliest ChristidniJy

evidence for the theological activiry of a community who~ rtlationship to

THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF JESUS IN Q?

Q and the Death of jesus

Praccic:ally since Q 6nt came to be viewed as a document in its own right,

1. Until the che cstly rwcntit-th erorury, Q wu treated 'more as a convenient

1. Q and the Passion Kerygma

3. b. Wei£, A A.W"-Wal of ltstTOduaion to the Ntw Tutament (tram. A.j.K. Da~

9. G.D. Castor, J<.Litthew's Sgyings of}1sus: The Non·Alare#lt Common SOtttu of

knowledge of how jesus died. Others emphasize t-hat Q nowhere, mentions

29. TOOt. Son of Man, p. 268.

2. "/"he Dtath of /tsuJ in Q

Jl. S<cck. 11'..1, p. 281.

understanding of Q as having an origin within kerygmacic Christianity. 41 Bur

suffered crucifilCion'.-'0 Second, regardless of whether the mimetic view of

.SO. Seelty, •jesus• (},uth'. p. 226 .

a vindicated and exalted post-morrem jes-us; however, Hultgren thinks that

56. Hulf8rm. NormaJiv~ Christianity. p. 34.

3. lnferen... from the Deuteronomisti< Theology of Q

not concern themselves with the death of a teacher...u Howevtr; Q is unlike

6$. Kloppenborg. 'Wter Fajth', p. 82.

history appropriated withio Q's •judgmental apocalyptic context', becomes

still stands ln the dcuteronomis-tk vi~w within a continuum of rejection

110. Set espcciaUy Li.ihnnann, "Mark and Q', p. 64.

Kloppcnborg rightly observes that Q fails to individualize its view of

Q and the Resuffect.ion of je.sus

the resurrection of jesus in Q. On the one band, as noted above, it is mistaken

107. So Kloppmborg. 'But« Faith', p. 81.

presumed, then in its absence some other mode of vindication or validation

2. Q, 'Easter', and J-.us the C<>ming Sen of Man

Was there a formative or originating experience of Jes-us as exalted, formu~

1'hus for Hof(rnann Q shows evidence of an experience o f the exalted post-

Hof-fmann argued that this christological cognition was in fact the

Q's contents receive an entirely eschatological orientation, for as the insuuc·

123. Hoffmann. Stutl•'~n, p. 142.

Q tends to indicate the initial stages of the cbristological devdoprocnt from a

This developmental scenario is nor beyond question, though it has certain

J . Q, 'Easter', and the ugitimation of jesus' Teaching

have great significance in any of the treatments discussed here, it may be

132. HoffmaM, Studien, p. 141.

appropriation of jesus as an 'epic-apocalyptic' founder figure in supporc

Thus in Kloppenborg•s view, "Easter' for Q is not an event but a hermeneu ..

138. See also Mack, Lo.st Gosptl.

Q 13.34-35, THE jERUSALEM LAMENT: SURVEY OF R ESEARCH

Q 13.34-35, rhe 'Jerusalem Lament' saying (Mt. 23.37-39; Lk. 13.34-35),

(34) . lipouoaAri~' J&povoaAI]IJ. n

while Lk. 13.34-JS follow• Q 13.28·30.' In addition, there is disagreemenr

Q 13.34-JS with 11.49-51 as Sayings of Wisdom

Harnack sugge~'itc:d that Q 13.34-JS is a quotation from a now-lost jewish