Chapter 63 of 404

A Non-eschatological Wisdom Source?

Mack’s reconstruction of the “early layer” of Q not only excludes Q’s arguably few narratives, but also its many sayings about future judgment and a future figure, at least sometimes identified with Jesus. Omitting eschatology from Q requires some major surgery! It is “Q” (the shared material behind Matthew and Luke, apart from Mark) that mentions the Twelve reigning and judging Israel in the end-time (Matt 19:28; Lk 22:30); or the incomparably powerful end-time judge burning the wicked (Matt 3:7-12; Lk 3:7-9, 16-17); or Jesus rejecting the wicked at the judgment (Matt 7:21-23; Lk 13:26-27).¹³⁷

Following the work of some of his colleagues, Mack’s “early” version of Q not surprisingly presents Jesus as a nonapocalyptic, Cynic-type sage, just what Mack considers Jesus to be.¹³⁸ Yet the idea that wisdom sayings in “Q” constitute its earliest layer is hardly a consensus.¹³⁹ Indeed, some scholars, by contrast, have argued that the eschatological sayings are the earliest layer in Q and that wisdom sayings were later embedded in this apocalyptic framework!¹⁴⁰ And any who regard even some of Jesus’ eschatological sayings as authentic will come up with a completely different picture of Jesus than Mack does.¹⁴¹

Many other scholars are skeptical, I believe rightly, of the value of the quest for finding specific layers of editing in Q.¹⁴² Literary critics outside the discipline consider such procedures even more eccentric.¹⁴³ Not only is the entire procedure of distinguishing “layers” based on emphases too speculative. Here it is also circular: the assertion that the “sage” layer is earliest rests on the very reconstruction of Jesus the argument is designed to prove!

A basic principle of historiography is that the more one builds hypotheses on other hypotheses, the less the overall probability of the additional hypotheses. If “Q” were (for example) 70% probable, and if one granted (which I would not) that some layers within Q were 70% likely, one would have already conceded that the overall likelihood of these layers is less than 50% (49%, to be exact). To then hypothetically reconstruct those layers and argue (as again I would not) that one’s reconstruction was 70% likely, one would be left with an overall probability of 34.3% (about one-third). Of course, scholars differ on all the likelihood of each of these hypotheses, but my point is simply that the more one adds speculation to speculation, the further on a limb one’s speculation goes. Inevitably the limb becomes unable to support the scholar’s weight.¹⁴⁴

↑ Back to top