This study examines the occurrences of wisdom and apocalypticism in Q, and then draws conclusions from the latter about the historical Jesus. Important questions are addressed: Did Q think of Jesus as a wisdom teacher, an apocalyptic prophet, or both? If Q associated both wisdom and apocalypticism with Jesus, what was the interrelationship between these two? Did either enjoy preference, or were they equally important to the person and message of Jesus? A concerted effort is made to let Q speak for itself. If the latter were possible, how would Q and the people behind it respond to the Renewed and Third Quests for the historical Jesus? This question basically sums up the research gap, which is to provide the Sayings Gospel with an opportunity to respond to these reconstructions of Jesus. Hence, there are two levels to the present work. The first level focuses on Q in order to determine the roles of both wisdom and apocalypticism in Q. This exercise constitutes the focal point and bulk of the study, leading to the central theory: The Q people remembered and described Jesus as a sage who made use of apocalyptic eschatology to motivate and support his moral message. The acceptance or rejection of this theory will naturally have an impact on our understanding of the historical Jesus, which represents the second level of inquiry. The second level focuses on the historical Jesus, and our understanding of him, given the results obtained in this investigation of Q. The high regard for Q and the propensity to regard Q as a stratified document places this study squarely in the camp of the Renewed Quest. However, there are two aspects of the study that have affinities with the Third Quest as well. The first is the inclination to question the noneschatological image of Jesus proffered by the Renewed Quest. The second is the synchronic manner in which the study approaches Q. By preferring to ask how Q remembered and described Jesus, Q is approached in a manner reminiscent of the Third Quest’s historical method. The research gap is addressed in a systematic way. Chapter one provides a focused overview of historical Jesus research from Reimarus to the present – an endeavour that naturally leads in to a discussion of the dissertation’s research gap, focal point and central theory. In chapter two, Q is considered in its entirety, including its documentary status, its stratification, its genre, its ethnic colouring and its eschatology. Chapter three zooms in on Q’s apocalyptic-judgment and Son-of- Man sayings specifically. An exegetical examination of these logia concentrates particularly on the focal point: the interrelationship between wisdom and apocalypticism in Q. Chapter four zooms in further on a single Q saying: Q 6:37-38. The purpose remains to determine the relationship between wisdom and apocalypticism in Q. The study moves in a centripetal direction, from historical-Jesus research in general (chapter 1), to the Q document (chapter 2), to the Son-of-Man and apocalyptic-judgment logia within Q (chapter 3), to one specific logion about judgment (chapter 4). Chapter five pulls everything together by (1) assessing the central theory, (2) responding to both the Third and Renewed Quests, (3) suggesting ways to reconcile these two currents, (4) commenting on the relevance of Jesus’ wisdom and morality for today, and (5) highlighting avenues for further study. The central theory is ultimately confirmed, albeit with an important qualification: Apocalyptic eschatology also formed an integral part of the sapiential message of Q’s Jesus. In response to the Renewed Quest, it is found that apocalyptic eschatology can not and should not be divorced from the message of Q’s Jesus. In response to the Third Quest, it is found that Q’s Jesus was primarily a sage, and that his apocalyptic eschatology was not imminent in nature. Regarding the wisdom and morality of Q’s Jesus, it is found that the essence of his message remains valid. This is particularly true of the way in which he used apocalyptic eschatology to motivate and buttress his moral message. / Thesis (PhD)--University of Pretoria, 2012. / New Testament Studies / unrestricted

This thesis focussed on the matter of Judean ethnic identity in the first century CE. At first we pointed out that New Testament scholarship lacks an overall interpretive framework to understand Judean identity. There is not an appreciation of what informed the entire process of Judean ethnic identity formation in the first century, or at any period for that matter. This lack of interpretive framework is acute in scholarship on the historical Jesus, where the issue of Judeanness is most strongly debated. We investigated the reconstructions of John P Meier and John D Crossan, and attempted to identify what content, be it explicitly or implicitly, or by omission, do they assign to Jesus’ Judean identity. But as yet, we were not in a position to say just what kind of Judean Jesus was. We then proceeded by developing a Socio-Cultural Model of Judean Ethnicity. At first Sanders’ notion of covenantal nomism was explored and redefined to function primarily as an ethnic descriptor. We combined the notion of covenantal nomism with Berger and Luckmann’s theories on the sociology of knowledge, and saw that covenantal nomism could function as the Judean construction of reality. It is a convenient way to define the Judean “symbolic universe”. Dunn’s “four pillars of Second Temple Judeanism” was then reviewed, which looked at the importance of the Temple, God, Election and the Torah. The “new perspective” on Paul as developed by Dunn also proved useful, as he brought attention to the importance of traditional customs (e g circumcision and food laws), and how it served as “badges” for Judean identity. The approaches of Sanders and Dunn, however, lacked the insights of ethnicity theory. Ethnicity theory has identified two primary alternatives when it comes to ethnicity formation: constructionism and primordialism. We looked at the attempt of Jones to integrate the various approaches by her incorporation of the concept of the habitus. An overview of Duling’s Socio-Cultural Model of Ethnicity followed, which lists all the relevant cultural features and which emphasises the predominant constructionist approach. We integrated all of the above into our own proposed model, which we termed covenantal nomism. It is a pictorial representation of the Judean symbolic universe, which as an ethnic identity, was proposed to be essentiall primordialist. The model was then given appropriate content, by investigating what would have been typical of first century Judean ethnic identity. It was also demonstrated that their existed a fundamental continuity between Judea and Galilee, as Galileans were ethnic Judeans themselves and they lived on the ancestral land of Israel. Attention was then focussed on the matter of ethnic identity in Q. We investigated the stratification of Kloppenborg and suggested that the third stratum which refers to the Torah properly belongs to the polemical and apologetic strategy of the main redaction. After analysing the two stratums it was concluded that Q points to a community whose Judean ethnic identity was in (re)construction. Apart from the cultural features of name and land, all cultural features demonstrated strong elements of discontinuity with traditional covenantal nomism. The Q people were given an eschatological Judean identity based on their commitment to Jesus and the requirements of the kingdom/reign of God. / Thesis (PhD (New Testament Studies))--University of Pretoria, 2007. / New Testament Studies / unrestricted