Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and

Theology
http://btb.sagepub.com

Temptation and Authority: Sapiential Narratives in Q

Hugh M. Humphrey
Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology 1991; 21; 43
DOI: 10.1177/014610799102100202

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/21/2/43

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Biblical Theology Bulletin Inc.

Additional services and information for Biblical Theology Bulletin: A Journal of Bible and Theology can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://btb.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://btb.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/21/2/43

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

 TEMPTATION AND AUTHORITY:
SAPIENTIAL NARRATIVES IN Q

HUGH M. HUMPHREY

Abstract
In 1987 John Kloppenborg suggested that the account of the Temptations of Jesus was added last to the earlier strata
of "Q" materials in order to ascribe to them the legitimacy stemming from a "tested" wisdom teacher. The arguments
offered to support that view, however, are not entirely persuasive. It is argued here instead that the Temptations of Jesus
found in Q/Luke 4:1-13, par. Matt 4:1-11 should be viewed as the opening narrative of the earliest, sapiential stratum
of Q. Criticism is also offered of Kloppenborg’s arguments concerning the Centurion’s Son episode in Q/Luke 7:1-10,
par. Matt 8:5-13; this, too, should rather be viewed as a narrative part of that earliest Q material. The parallel supporting
the interpretation of the Temptation account and the alternation of paradigmatic narrative scenes with sapiential sayings
collections is the Wisdom of Solomon, indicating the continued influence of the wisdom tradition upon early Christianity
and its literary forms.

n his 1987 study, The Formation of Q, John Kloppen- It is useful at this point to summarize the results of
borg noted that some of the materials in this collection Kloppenborg’s analysis of the first part of the Q materials.
of sayings attributed to Jesus are &dquo;organized about motifs The illustration below on p. 44 shows the order of Q and
of the coming judgment, the urgency of repentance, the the formative strata of Q.
impenitence of ’this generation’ and the ramifications of The sequential numbering and the pericope names
Gentile faith&dquo; (101). These materials include John’s follow Kloppenborg’s own arrangement (74-76) which,
preaching of the Coming One in Q3:7-9, 16-17 [the Q of course, continues to the end of the Q material. The
texts are cited according to their chapter and verse items inside the single-line boxes are the &dquo;announcement
indications in the Gospel of Luke]; John, Jesus, and &dquo;this of judgment&dquo; materials in Q. For Kloppenborg these
generation&dquo; in Q 7:1-10, 18-28, 18-35; the Controversies &dquo;announcement of judgment&dquo; materials were inter-
with Israel section in Q 11:14-52; the Preparedness for the polated into the already existing &dquo;sapiential speeches&dquo;;
End material in Q 12:39-59; and the Eschatological Dis- he asserts that a compositional analysis of Q6:23c and
course in Q 17:23-37. Q10:12, 13-15, materials which conform to the motifs
It wasalso Kloppenborg’s contention that these clus- of the &dquo;announcement of judgment&dquo; stratum, shows that
ters which emphasize judgment and the call to repen- they must be considered to have been added to the sur-
tance represent a later stage in the development of Q. rounding material, rather than the surrounding material
Attention to the ways in which these materials are joined having been added to them. Thus, Q6:23c and Q 10:12,
to the other clusters of sayings in Q show that they have 13-15 have been placed in italics, to indicate that they
been interpolated into the clusters of sayings which lack intrude upon the originally coherent sapiential speeches
these characteristic motifs and are organized according in which they are found. Finally, the broken-line box
to different principles. around #3 indicates Kloppenborg’s judgment that this
I will disagree principally with Kloppenborg’s judg- &dquo;Temptation Story&dquo; is the last of the pieces to be joined
ment that the Temptation Narrative belongs to the last together into the collection of sayings we call Q. Klop-
stage of the redaction of Q, marking the movement from penborg’s presentation has been altered in one respect,
a concern preeminently with sayings material toward a however, because #20, the &dquo;Centurion’s Son&dquo; episode, has
concern for narrative material (262), and will suggest been separated from what follows it; for Kloppenborg,
that the movement towards narrative so much a this passage opens the second &dquo;announcement of judg-
phenomenon of Q as of the wisdom movement’s own ment&dquo; collection, but we shall have to examine his
change of direction, occurring even before the explicitly reasons for that placement.

apocalyptic materials were added. Kloppenborg misreads

the function of the Temptation narrative, which together
with the Centurion’s Son episode (Q 7:1-10) create para-
Hugh M. Humphrey, Ph.D. (Fordham), author of A Bibliography
for the Gospel of Mark 1954-1980 (New York/Toronto: Edwin
digmatic scenes of Jesus as God’s righteous one, whose Mellen Press, 1981), and an earlier article in BTB (vol. 19), is
word is to be heard because it is an expression of God’s Associate Professor of Religious Studies at Fairfield University,
will for men. Fairfield, CT 06430.

43

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

44 Biblical Theology Bulletin

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

 45

According to Kloppenborg, each of these strata has its the community’s self-understanding as the privileged
own distinctive context. Because the characteristic recipients of the revelation of the kingdom&dquo; (202). This
motifs of the sapiential speeches include a high value is,.however, placed within the sapiential stratum because
on poverty, the renunciation of violence, an attitude of it is seen as consistent with Jesus’ status as the unique
forgiveness, &dquo;discipleship ... conceived in the most envoy of Wisdom expressed in Q 11:29-32, 33-36 and
radical social and personal terms,&dquo; and a pejorative especially Q 12:8. That earlier discussion of what these
reference to things &dquo;Gentile,&dquo; these wisdom materials are texts say about Jesus may need to be reopened, because
seen to derive &dquo;from a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian it is not just a matter of their being found in each of the
community which had not yet engaged fully in a two strata. As Piper has pointed out, there would seem
Gentile mission&dquo; (241). Here we find &dquo;the radical wisdom to be a significant difference between the aphoristic
of the kingdom of God&dquo; (242) coming to expression. sayings material in Q which derived its strength and
By contrast, the &dquo;announcement of judgment&dquo; mate- persuasiveness from its appeal to human experience and
rials reflect the failure of the mission to Israel. The Q the &dquo;Sophia&dquo;/Wisdom texts where there is an insistence
woes in their final form and the five speeches in this
upon the community’s enjoying a unique revelation. Yet
stratum are generally aimed at a much more broadly con- after reviewing these texts and the scholarly discussion
ceived group: &dquo;it includes all of Israel or’this generation’ of them (Piper: 162-184), he is able to c6nclude that
(7:1-10,31-35; 11:29-32, 49-51)&dquo; (167). A Deuteronomistic &dquo;despite functional distinctions in the use ofuaphoristic
kind of theology which views Israel as under the threat sayings and of ’Sophia’ sayings in the double tradition,
of judgment is in view at several points (167). This the epistemological gulf between the two njay not be so
stratum of materials serves a dual purpose, therefore: it _ wide as to require that these sapiential traditions derive
both strengthens the community itself and it interprets from widely separated circles or times&dquo; (184). That
for them &dquo;the experience of persecution, rejection and conclusion would seem to locate Q 10: 21-22 appro-
even the failure of their preaching of the kingdom&dquo; (168).
priately enough within Kloppenborg’s sapiential stratum,
Despite these comments about the contexts of the two but it does not fully explain the employment of Sophia/
strata at the time of their composition, Kloppenborg is Wisdom texts in a judgment setting. Still, the use of the
careful to assert that he is tracing a literary history and
Sophia/Wisdom texts also in the later apocalyptic
not a history of the tradition for the various materials stratum does suggest some measure of continuity
within each stratum (244-245). Yet it is precisely this between Q 1 and Q2, rather than discontinuity.
literary history which is of interest to us here, because
it allows us a lens through which to view developments
within an early Christian community. There is nothing,
of course, which absolutely precludes each of these Temptation Narrative
written compositions from having their place of origin .. -It
.

in different communities, rather than in one single, And now, finally, the matter of the Temptation Nar-
rative. Kloppenborg treats this as a distinct piece within
growing and developing community. Still the work of ’
.

R. A. Piper in tracing the aphoristic materials in Q does Q for the following reasons:
find them in both of Kloppenborg’s strata and finds them (1) It is a true narrative. The other narratives in
used in fundamentally the same manner, an observation Q7:1-10 and Q11:14 show only &dquo;marginal interest&dquo; in the
which does suggest continuity rather than discontinuity narrative component and are really ~apophthegms. In
between the two stages of Ql (sapiential) and Q2 Q4:1-13, by contrast, speech is used &dquo;as the servant of
narrative.&dquo;
(announcement of judgment) materials.
Perhaps it should at least be mentioned that the texts (2) Its form as a three-part deba te and’ its mythic motif
which were the focus of an earlier discussion on the rela- are unparalleled in Q.

tionship of Jesus to the figure of personified Wisdom in (3) Explicit biblical quotations are rare in.Q; only here
the Jewish literary tradition, sometimes taking the form and in 7:27 are they introduced by &dquo;it is written.&dquo;
of a &dquo;Sophia-ology&dquo; (U. Wilckens; M. J. Suggs) or the form (4) &dquo;The title [the son of God] is not found elsewhere
’

of a &dquo;Wisdom Christology&dquo; (F. Christ), are treated differ- in Q&dquo; (247).

ently by Kloppenborg. On the one hand there is the (5) The Temptation Narrative implies that Jesus
Sophia saying in 7:35 and the Sophia oracle in 11:49-51, should be a worker of miracles, but elsewhere in Q
both of which Kloppenborg places within the secondary miracles are events which portend the coming of the
&dquo;announcement of judgment&dquo; materials. On the other Kingdom.
hand, in the earlier stratum, apparently paradoxically, (6) Finally, the &dquo;direct confrontation between Jesus
is placed the text in Q 10:21-22; Kloppenborg acknowl- and the devil [not Beelzebul or Satan as elsewhere in Q]
edges that this has a Christology which surpasses that is unique; elsewhere Jesus’ opposition comes from ’this
of Q7:31-35 and Qll:49-51 ~201), one which &dquo;articulates generation&dquo;’ (248).

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

46 .-_, ·Vl. Jf.J.L

In Kloppenborg’s view, these reasons establish the Yet another reason for the Temptation Narrative’s
Temptation Narrative as a separate piece, an addition being understood as adistinct passage is its form as a
to the other strata discernible in Q. It could have been three-part debate and its &dquo;mythic&dquo; motif. Admittedly
added for any one of the variety of reasons Kloppenborg there is no other narrative piece with a three-part debate
reviews: as a polemic against Israel; for its paradigmatic in Q. But is Q necessarily the only term of comparison?
value, either of Jesus’ obedience or of Jesus as the model At least one other term of comparison is possible, that
of voluntary powerlessness and absolute dependence of the Wisdom of Solomon. In Q 4:1-13 we find two
upon God; or for Christological apologetics, to counter parties, Jesus and &dquo;the devil&dquo;; we find the motif of testing;
enthusiastic and thaumaturgic tendencies within the we find the challenges to be threefold; and we find the

community; or as a rejection of Zealot Messianism. But specific question being the identity of the righteous man
as &dquo;son of God.&dquo; But that is exactly what one finds in
Kloppenborg has found weakness in most of these sug-
gestions and when forced to suggest an answer to his own Wisdom 2:17-18:
question, &dquo;Why was the temptation account added to Q?&dquo;
us see if his words are true,
(256), judges that &dquo;the most likely answer is that the Let
redactor regarded the story as having paradigmatic and and let us test what will happen at the end of his life;
for if the righteous man is God’s son,
aetiological significance for the rest of Q. It served to he will help him
illustrate and legitimate the mode of behavior and the
and will deliver him from the hand of his adversaries.
ethos of the Q group. As hero and leader of the Q
community, Jesus pro-vided an example of the absolutely Wisdom 2:17-18 is a narrative in which there are two par-
dependent, non-defensive and apolitical stance of his
’

ties in conflict, the righteous man and the &dquo;ungodly,&dquo; the

followers&dquo; (256~.
latter being of the party of the &dquo;devil&dquo; (Wis 2:24). The
The effect of the addition of the Temptation Narrative
motif of testing is clear. And clear also are three
to the Q material was to bring into that material a motif
of temptation or of the ordeal of the wise and faithful challenges. The first challenge is to see if the righteous
man’s words &dquo;are true.&dquo; That is, of course, the essence
man. Kloppenborg goes on to show that &dquo;this motif com-
of the first Temptation, where Jesus is challenged to
monly occurs at the beginning of wisdom collections&dquo; misuse the power and authority of his word by
(1987: 260). Thus the &dquo;placement of the testing story after commanding something frivolous, that stones be turned
the predictions of John and just before the beginning of
into loaves of bread; but Jesus’ response shows that his
Jesus’ main activity (preaching) conforms the opening words are true, for he defers to the true bread which
sequences of Q to the narrative pattern shared by the sustains life, the word of God. The second challenge of
legends about Abraham and Job, and the Graeco-Roman the ungodly toward the righteous man is to &dquo;test what
hero biographies&dquo; (262). will happen at the end of his life.&dquo; That is, however, the
essence of the second Temptation in which Jesus is asked

AN ALTERNATIVE READING OF THE DATA to throw himself from the pinnacle of the Temple to his
probable death. The third challenge of the ungodly
And now let us argue an alternative view of the
pertains to the righteous man’s being truly a &dquo;son of God,&dquo;
Temptation Narrative. The reasons Kloppenborg offers a challenge echoed in the third Temptation where Jesus
for understanding the Temptation Narrative to be the is challenged to change his allegiance from serving God
last addition to the Q materials need closer examination. to serving the devil; the emphasis here is placed on the
Kloppenborg notes, first of all, that the Temptation &dquo;I f you are God’s son ...&dquo; in Wisdom 2:18, i.e., if you are
Narrative in Q4:1-13 is &dquo;true narrative&dquo; and is dis-
a
really righteous before God and his true servant....
tinguished from the rest of Q by that fact. Yet he There is, moreover, that matter of the references to
compares it to Q7:1-10 which is also a &dquo;true narrative&dquo; &dquo;if you are God’s son.&dquo; Kloppenborg had asserted that the
and which he has no difficulty assigning nonetheless to Temptation Narrative was distinguishable from the rest
the &dquo;announcement of judgment&dquo; materials stratum. of Q by its use of the title &dquo;the Son of God.&dquo; Yet the
Much hinges on the particular decision that Q7:1-10 is definite article is not present before &dquo;son&dquo; in Q4:3 and
more apophthegm than narrative, more narrative in the 4:9, just as it is not present in the similar phrasing in
service of speech; much depends also upon decisions Wisdom 2:18.
made about the original form of the Centurion’s Son And so, these comparisons suggest that an entirely
passage in the Q material. Since we will discuss it in appropriate term of comparison for the Temptation Nar-
more detail below, it may suf~ce to agree that Q7:1-10 rative in Q4:1-13 can be found in the story of the testing
has a narrative character. Yet it is placed by Kloppen- of the righteous man in Wisdom 2. There we find a
borg in the apocalyptic/judgment stratum! But if Q7:1-10 &dquo;three-part&dquo; sequence, the distinctive phrasing, &dquo;if you
can be narrative material in one of the Q strata, why a are God’s son [or, a son of God],&dquo; and the &dquo;mythic&dquo;

priori should Q 4:1-13 be omitted? element of &dquo;the devil.&dquo;

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

 47

But Kloppenborg’s position that the Temptation reason for the placing of narratives of testing before
Narrative could not be part of one of the original strata sapiential collections, but is it necessary to judge that
in Q rested first of all upon its being a &dquo;true narrative,&dquo; it was done as the last modification of Q? Why could not
which would make it significantly different by genre the same reasoning be used to suggest that it was added
from the speech material elsewhere in Q. Here, again, to the &dquo;sapiential&dquo; speech material in its earlier form (i.e.,
the term of comparison should be extended beyond Q before the &dquo;announcement of judgment&dquo; material had
itself to the Wisdom of Solomon. There one finds a been joined to it)?
similar assemblage of narrative scenes and speech
materials: In Wisdom 2:10-5:23 we find a narrative piece,
followed by an abrupt turn to the direct address/speech Centurion’s Son Narrative
of Solomon to the &dquo;kings&dquo; in 6:1-9:18; followed in turn
by a narrative account of Wisdom’s mighty acts in The effect of the above arguments has been to reshape
chapters 10 and following. Given the precedent for the the beginning of the sapiential stratum in Q; instead of
joining of narrative and speech material into a single its starting with the Beatitudes (Q6:20-21), it would seem
collection of sapiential materials, it is just as much valid rather to have begun with the Temptation Narrative, a
to suggest that the Temptation Narrative began the first paradigmatic episode in which Jesus is tested and he
sapiential speech in the earliest (compositionally) proves himself a true &dquo;son of God,&dquo; thereby authenticat-
stratum. ing his teaching as being &dquo;of God&dquo; and not of &dquo;the devil.&dquo;
Yet another of Kloppenborg’s reasons for assigning to In Kloppenborg’s analysis, the sapiential stratum would
the Temptation Narrative a different and later origin was continue through Q6:47-49, at which point it is
that it showed Jesus’ being tempted to perform a miracle, interrupted by the insertion of material from the
implying an understanding that miracles derive more announcement of judgment stratum, beginning with the
from Jesus’ own power than that they are events asso- Centurion’s Son Narrative in Q7:1-10. Yet there are
ciated with the dawning of the Kingdom of God as several considerations which raise the possibility that
elsewhere in Q. That seems, however, really to be a this narrative, too, should be seen as part of the sapien-
misreading of the Temptation Narrative. The Tempta- tial stratum. Kloppenborg’s interpretation of it as
tions, rather, assume that Jesus is presenting himself as informed primarily by an announcement of judgment
the &dquo;son of God,&dquo; completely in line with the under- motif because of the word of Jesus in Q7:9 seems, indeed,
standing in the sapiential stratum of Q of Jesus as the to misplace the emphasis of the story, which is upon the
unique revealer of the Father, the &dquo;son&dquo; through whom power of Jesus’ word. That is entirely consistent with
one can know the Father (Q10:22). The Temptations are the first Temptation (&dquo;Tell stones to become bread&dquo;) and
focused not on Jesus as miracle-worker, but on Jesus as with the content of the Parable of the Builders, Q6:47-49,
obedient and faithful, i.e., as &dquo;righteous&dquo; in the full which immediately precedes it and with the estimation
wisdom sense, to the Father. The Temptations call upon of Jesus in Q 10:21-22. And so, this episode may be seen
Jesus first to mis-use his authoritative word, then to as yet another paradigmatic narrative interspersed with

presume upon his relationship with God (&dquo;tempting the aphoristic sayings material, much like the pattern
God&dquo;), and then as a last resort to turn away from his observable in the Wisdom of Solomon.
allegiance, his &dquo;serving&dquo; for personal gain. Miracle- Kloppenborg, while admitting that the episode in
working is a very minor motif in the first Temptation; Q7:1-10 is linked to the preceding parable by two catch-
and it is absent in the second and third Temptations, words (&dquo;Lord&dquo;: 6:46, 7:6; and &dquo;word&dquo;: 6:46, 49 and 7:7),
where Jesus’ relationship with God is the focus. discounts this because he thinks that &dquo;the miracle story
And so it just does not seem that the reasons Kloppen- has little to do with any of the specific themes of the
borg alleged for the Temptation Narrative’s being foreign Sermon&dquo; (1987: 117). And while the centurion does
to the kinds of material found in Q and, consequently, manifest great faith in Jesus’ word, &dquo;this is less related
a later addition to Q need to be interpreted as he has to Jesus’ function as a teacher than it is to his [&dquo;power&dquo;]
done. They are just as appropriately considered as the as a miracle worker&dquo; (ibid.). Moreover, this interest in

introductory narrative, the paradigmatic testing of the Jesus’ miracle-working power is seen as linking Q7:1-10
ideal righteous man, a &dquo;son of God,&dquo; which begins the with Q7:18-23, as does the more important implied
Q stratum of sapiential speech material. Kloppenborg criticism of Israel’s lack of response to Jesus’s &dquo;author-
also suggested that the late addition of the Temptation ity&dquo; in 7:9; cf. 7:35). And so, what appears to separate
Narrative to the Q materials (both strata combined) was Q7:1-10 from the preceding parable is viewed as out-
made in order to pull Q into line with other sayings weighing those catchword linkages: a focus upon Jesus’
collections such as the Sayings of Ahikar, the Life of power or authority and the criticism of Israel. But let us
Aesop and Demonax where narrative introductions are examine each of these a bit more closely.
provided for sayings genres which &dquo;legitimate&dquo; the First of all, it really is not clear that the focus of the
authority of the speaker (325-327). Perhaps that was the Centurion’s Son episode is upon Jesus’ &dquo;authority,&dquo;

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

 48

understood as a miracle-working power. Indeed, in the judgment stratum which follows Q7:1-10 that emphasis
story, the centurion compares himself to Jesus precisely is not intimated until Q7:31-35 and not next encountered
on the characteristic of &dquo;authority&dquo;; he also stands under in Q until Q10:12-15. And finally, assuming that Q7:9
authority and has &dquo;authority&dquo; over others (7:8) and itself does pertain to the judgment stratum [and perhaps
certainly not in the sense of being a miracle worker. also the material which follows it in the Matthean order:
What the passage afhrms is that Jesus, like the centurion, Matt 7:10, 11-12], how can one preclude the very real
has an authority and his word is one which must be possibility that just this verse [or, these verses] were not
listened to and obeyed, just as the centurion’s commands inserted into the Q sapiential stratum just as Kloppen-
must be carried out by those below them. This is, then, borg had argued that Q6:23c and Q10:12, 13-15 were?
yet another-thematic-link back to the preceding The story in Q7:2-8, 10, after all, does not have a crowd
parable, where the emphasis had been on hearing the accompanying Jesus, and the introduction of the crowd
&dquo;word&dquo; of Jesus and &dquo;doing&dquo; it (cf. Q6:46, 47). The cen- in Q7:9 seems to have been made only to provide the
turion’s request that Jesus &dquo;speak the word&dquo; so that the audience for the saying recorded there.
. son/servant’ might be &dquo;healed&dquo; need not be a request for In sum, it just does not seem that Kloppenborg has
a physical healing, but for. the teaching/revelation of made his case that the Centurion’s Son episode neces-
God’s will/wisdom which saves men. There are, after all, sarily belonged to the announcement of judgment
only the request for the dealing&dquo; in Q7:8 and the resolu- stratum. It is linked instead to what precedes it by the
tion of the story in Q7:10 on which to base an interpreta- two catchwords and by the theme of response to an
tion of this passage ¡~s a &dquo;miracle story.&dquo; authoritative word and it accordingly formed part of the
The focus, therefoi e, would appear to be upon the con- sapiential stratum.
trast between the authority of the centurion and the Two more observations follow from these arguments:
authority of Jesus. The narrative expresses that contrast -If Kloppenborg is correct that the sapiential material
immediately in the admission of the centurion: &dquo;I am not in Q continues with Q9:57-60, then the consequence of
worthy ...&dquo;~(7:6~. In view of the Temptation Narrative’s my position is that it continues with two more scenes
having established Jesus as the &dquo;son of God&dquo; who can in which the response of individuals is portrayed. Not
teach the word of God authentically, and in view of the only do these responses contrast with the example of the
preceding parable where response to Jesus’ word is made centurion [the &dquo;scribe&dquo; calls Jesus only &dquo;Teacher&dquo; in the
the critical factor in being saved before God, that con- Matthean form of the episode; and one of Jesus’ own
trast of the two authorities is entirely obvious. Jesus’ disciples has his own priorities, although he, too, calls
authoritative word is the one which can give the wisdom Jesus &dquo;Lord&dquo;], but there could have been a similarity in
one needs to be righteous before God. As the Wisdom the introductions of Q7:1-10 and Q9:57-60 if one looks
of Solqmon says, at the Matthean wording:

Matt. 7:5 &dquo;a centurion came forward to him ... say-

&dquo;Who has learned thy counsel, I
; unless thou hast given wisdom ing ...&dquo;
.
and sent thy holy Spirit from on high? Matt. 8:19 &dquo;a scribe came up and said to him....&dquo;
And thus the paths of those on earth were set right, -A more pointed consequence of the placement of both
and men were taught what pleases thee,
and were saved by wisdom.&dquo; (9:17-18) the Temptation Narrative and the Centurion’s Son Nar-
rative in the sapiential stratum is that the material
Turning from the matter of the Centurion’s Son Narra- Kloppenborg identifies as a &dquo;judgment stratum&dquo; would
tive as a &dquo;miracle story&dquo; to its supposed implied critique now be interrupted at Q3:16-17 and resumed at Q7:18-23
of Israel, we would have to admit that, if Kloppenborg and following. That is a not entirely improbable result.
were correct that Q7:9 was a critique against Israel for Q3:16-17 presents John as speaking of the &dquo;One coming
its lack of response to Jesus’ authority, there might be after me&dquo; (Q3:16) and Q7:19 has John the Baptist asking
reason for reading Q7:1-10 as indeed better associated Jesus if he is &dquo;the one who is to come.&dquo; There is a fluid
with the &dquo;announcement of judgment&dquo; materials which and consistent continuation if, and only if, both the
follow than with the sapiential speech which precedes Temptation Narrative and the Centurion’s Son episodes
it. Several considerations make that decision problem- are associated with the sapiential speech material in

atic, however. First of all, the words &dquo;I have not found 6:20-49.
such faith in Israel&dquo; (Q7:9) do not necessarily imply a
critique, judgment against Israel; they can in context
a
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
be anadmiring exclamation at the extent of the cen-
turion’s faith; admiration is apparent, after all, in the The purpose of the above argument has not been to
words which lead into the saying, &dquo;he marveled at him.&dquo; challenge the Kloppenborg assessment of the formation
Secondly, it is not clear that before this point in Q Israel of Q, an assessment which is becoming an accepted
has in fact failed to respond to Jesus; even in the starting point for further work on Q, so much as it has

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009

 49

been to refine that assessment and to eliminate an vestigation of the &dquo;christology&dquo; of Q. Despite the
unnecessary tension within it. arguments of Piper seeking to diminish the exceptional
First of all, the considerations set forth above refine oharacter of Q7:35 and Q11:49-51, those sayings explicit-
the character of the sapiential stratum proposed by Klop- ly attributed to the personified figure of &dquo;Wisdom&dquo; are
penborg. It does so by more consistently acknowledging embedded in contexts which are characterized by judg-
the character of the Centurion’s Son passage as narrative ment and warning and are appropriately placed by Klop-
and by positioning the Temptation Narrative within the penborg in his second stratum. The problem is not so
first compositional layer of sapiential materials. The much the problem addressed by Piper, i.e. the seeming
consequence of this is to notice that the sapiential distance between the experiential &dquo;wisdom&dquo; of the
stratum already interwove narrative materials with its
aphoristic sayings material in Q and the acceptance of
sayings materials, much in the fashion of the Wisdom a -unique and privileged &dquo;revelation&dquo; through the teaching
of Solomon; it is really not the case, therefore, that the of Jesus in Q 10:21-22. The connection between those
Temptation Narrative should be seen as evidence that ideas had already been made in a satisfactory manner in
only in the final stage of its compositional history was the Wisdom of Solomon, for there we learn that
Q beginning to move toward narrative forms. knowledge of what exists, to know the structure of the
Moreover, what has been proposed here clarifies what world ... , what is secret and what is manifest&dquo; (WisSol
has the appearance of an inconsistency. When Kloppen-
7:17, 21 ) comes from God (WisSol 7:15, 17; 8:21 ); but it
borg judges the Temptation Narrative to be both sapien- is &dquo;Wisdom, the fashioner of all things&dquo; (WisSol 7:22j who
tial in character and the last element added to the Q
taught them. Wisdom not only knows the structure of
materials, he sets forth a three-stage development for the all things, but can give &dquo;understanding&dquo; (WisSol 8:18), a
composition of Q: (1) a sapiential stratum, with its own sense of how to employ this knowledge morally and well,
appropriate context; (2) a judgment/apocalyptic/Deutero- for Wisdom is &dquo;with&dquo; God and &dquo;understands what is pleas-
nomic-driven stratum, reflecting an entirely different
ing in [God’s] sight and what is right according to {his]
context; and (3) the Temptation Narrative, added in order commandments&dquo; (WisSol 9:9).
to establish the authority of the sapiential Teacher.
The real problem, however, is the distance between
While the transition in the circumstances of the com-
the sapiential materials and their consistency with the
munity which brought Q into being can be readily wisdom tradition and the Sophia &dquo;myth&dquo; authenticating
imagined for the movement from the first to the second that tradition, on the one hand, and the employment of
stratum, it is not so easy to imagine it for the movement
from the second to the third stage. A community, after Sophia sayings in a judgment context, on the other. In
the Jewish wisdom tradition, Sophia/Wisdom appeals to
all, which had taken pride in its possessing the authen-
men: &dquo;she hastens to make herself known to those who
tic revelation of God’s will for them in the teaching of
desire her; she goes about seeking those worthy of
Jesus and which had esteemed Jesus as the unique
...

revealer of that revelation could, under the continued her&dquo; (WisSol 6:13, 16). In Proverbs, Sophia calls out to
men (Prov 8:1-6), inviting them to the companionship
experience of the rejection of that teaching, of Jesus, and
of themselves, have responded with an intensification of the dining table (Prov 9:3-6) and offers &dquo;life&dquo; to those
of their position; the threats of judgment against this who find her (Prov 8:35). The real difhculty is that the
generation serve as much to reafhrm the beliefs of this Sophia of appeal and welcbming has become in Q the
community as they do to castigate and reject those who Sophia of judgment. The question which should be fur-
have rejected them. And so, the composition of the ther examined is not so much the relationship of Jesus
second stratum and its addition to the first makes sense. to Wisdom/Sophia in Q as it is this transition which ap-
What does not make sense is the suggestion that then propriates the Wisdom/Sophia figure in a strikingly
the group would compose the Temptation Narrative different manner.
with its &dquo;sapiential&dquo; interests and its climactic citation In the Temptation Narrative, Jesus had said, &dquo;No one
of Deuteronomy 6:13, &dquo;You shall fear the Lord your God can live by bread alone&dquo; (Q4:4) and the Centurion had

and him shall you serve,’ and its absence of apocalyptic asked that Jesus &dquo;but speak a word&dquo; which can heal
and judgment warnings. How could a group, having (Q7:7). In view of the pieces of evidence offered above
experienced the stress and anguish of rejection and for the continued influence of the Jewish wisdom tradi-
hostility to the point of hurling apocalyptic warnings tion upon early Christianity, the time has come to con-
against its opponents, have retreated so quickly from the sider further the description of that trajectory of wisdom
position represented by the second stratum? Our sugges- teaching which binds Jesus and the early Christian com-
tion, by eliminating the third element in the composi- munities to the older sapiential desire to &dquo;fear the Lord,&dquo;
tion of Q, eliminates also an apparent tension in finds expression in several writings of the Second Testa-
Kloppenborg’s reconstruction. ment and, one could assert, continues into the Church’s
A final comment needs to be made with respect to the own development of the understanding of God’s will

&dquo;Sophia&dquo; texts which figured so large in an earlier in- today.

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009
50

Piper, Ronald A.
1989 Wisdom in the Q-tradition: The Aphoristic
Works Cited Teaching of Jesus. Society for New Testament
Studies Monograph Series 61. Cambridge, UK/
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Christ, Felix Suggs, M. Jack
1970 Jesus Sophia: Die Sophia-Christologie bei den 1970 Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s
Theologie des
Synoptikern. Abhandlungen zur Gospel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Alten und Neuen Testaments 57. Zürich, Press.
Switzerland: Zwingli Verlag. Wilckens, Ulrich
Kloppenborg, John S. 1959 Weisheit und Torheit: Eine exegetisch-religions-
1987 The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient geschichtliche Untersuchung zu 1 Kor. 1 und 2.
Wisdom Collections. Studies in Antiquity & Beiträge zur historischen Theologie 26. Tüb-
Christianity. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press. ingen, Germany: J. C. B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck).

Downloaded from http://btb.sagepub.com by on March 24, 2009