l i b r a r y o f n e w t e s t a m e n t s t u d i e s JERUSALEM AND THE EARLY JESUS MOVEMENT The Q Community’s Attitude Toward the Temple KYU SAM HAN JOURNAL FOR THE STUDY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT SUPPLEMENT SERIES 207 Executive Editor Stanley E. Porter Editorial Board Craig Blomberg, Elizabeth A. Castelli, David Catchpole, Kathleen E. Corley, R. Alan Culpepper, James D.G. Dunn, Craig A. Evans, Stephen Fowl, Robert Fowler, George H. Guthrie, Robert Jewett, Robert W. Wall Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint Jerusalem and the Early Jesus Movement The Q Community's Attitude Toward the sTemple Kyu Sam Han Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series 207 Copyright © 2002 Sheffield Academic Press A Continuum imprint Published by Sheffield Academic Press Ltd The Tower Building, 11 York Road, London SE1 7NX 370 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10017-6550 www.SheftleldAcademicPress.com www.continuumbooks.com All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Typeset by Sheffield Academic Press EISBN 9781841271835 CONTENTS Foreword 7 Preface 11 Abbreviations 12 Introduction 15 Chapter 1 HISTORICAL SURVEY OF THE DEBATE 21 Catchpole and a Positive Assessment of the Temple 21 Kloppenborg and a Negative Assessment of the Temple 34 Chapter 2 TEMPLE AND ALLEGIANCE 44 The Meaning of the Temple as the Source of Allegiance in Ancient Civilizations 44 The Meaning of the Jerusalem Temple in the First Century CE: The Source of Allegiance 51 A New Methodology: Four Types of Allegiance 54 Chapter 3 ALLEGIANCE HELD AND LOST: AN ANALYSIS OF INDICATORS 58 Allegiance to Medieval Korean Temples 58 Allegiance to Greek Temples and Philosophical Criticism 71 Allegiance to the Jerusalem Temple in the Literature of Second Temple Judaism 91 Summary and Conclusion 128 Chapter 4 Q's ALLEGIANCE TO THE JERUSALEM TEMPLE? 132 Q 4.9-12 132 Q 11.49-51 169 6 Jerusalem and the Early Jesus Movement Q 13.34-35 183 A Reflection on the Historical Background of the Shift in the Attitude toward the Temple 203 Chapter 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION 208 Bibliography 214 Index of References 237 Index of Authors 245 FOREWORD John S. Kloppenborg Verbin It has been a working hypothesis since the beginning of serious study of the Sayings Gospel Q in the 1960s that the document reflects the particular perspectives of one sector of the Jesus movement in Galilee, either shortly before the First Revolt or shortly after it. It is this location that renders almost inevitable the question of the relationship of Q and the people it represents to the central institutions of Second Temple Judaism, in particular the Torah and the Herodian Temple. Q's perspective on the Torah was the subject of several important studies. Siegfried Schulz's monumental study, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten, used Herbert Braun's notion of Torah-radicalism as a model for understanding Q's particular view of the Torah,1 and led to a construction that Q represented a conservative, Torah-observant group of Jewish Christians. Subsequent study has adjusted this model somewhat for a variety of reasons: because some of Schulz's reconstructions of Q, which favored Matthew's wordings, have been reconsidered; because Schulz's conclusion that many of Q's Aeyco ei(Ji sayings were functionally the equivalent of prophetic speech has been revaluated; and because more sophisticated models for understanding the stratigraphy of Q have been developed, allowing scholars to situate Q's interest in the Torah at very particular compositional junctures. A series of studies culminating in Daniel Kosch's important monograph on Q and the Torah2 seems now to 1. Siegfried Schulz, Q: Die Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972); Herbert Braun, Spdtjudisch-hdretischerundfruhchristlicherRadikalis- mus: Jesus von Nazareth und die essenische Qumransekte (BHT, 24.1-2; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 2nd edn, 1969). 2. Daniel Kosch, Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes: Untersuch- ungen zurRezeption der Stellung Jesu zur Tora in Q (NTOA, 12; Freiburg: Universi- tatsverlag; Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989). See also David R. Catchpole, 'The Law and the Prophets in Q', in Gerald F. Hawthorne, and Otto Betz (eds.), Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in Honor ofE. Earle Ellis 8 Jerusalem and the Early Jesus Movement define a consensus that Q, generally speaking, is not preoccupied with the Torah and Jesus' relationship to it. There remains, however, dispute con- cerning the particular compositional phase at which such texts as Q 16.17 and 11.42c should be located. Kyu Sam Han's study of Q takes up the other important element in understanding Q's place within late Second Temple Judaism, namely Q's relationship to the Herodian Temple. This is a pressing area of inquiry, especially in the light of our recognition that the Temple was not merely a 'religious' institution—not that any institutions of the ancient world were narrowly 'religious' in the way in which Northern European and North American discourses have tended define 'religious'—but a major eco- nomic and political force in Jewish Palestine. The fact that a variety of views, critical and otherwise, on the Herodian Temple were adopted by other Jews of the late Second Temple period naturally raises the question of how the Q people placed themselves in relation to the key institution of Jewish life. The investigation of Q's perspective on the Temple is fraught with problems. In the first place, there are relatively few locations in Q that speak directly or implicitly of the Temple and so, to some extent, Han's study must extrapolate from rather small scraps. Second, the texts Han investigates do not speak with the same voice, and this naturally raises the question of how to reconcile the seemingly positive view of tithing enunciated in 11.42c and the assumption implicit in Q 4.9-12 that the Temple is a site where angels are likely to be present, with the rather more hostile views of 11.49-51 and 13.34-35. One of the singular strengths of Han's study is its comparative approach, which lays out a spectrum of stances toward the Herodian Temple (and its Hasmonean predecessor) in contemporary literature, and situates these in turn in the context of attitudes towards temples and sanctuaries both in Greece and in the Koryo kingdom of ancient Korea. It is this cross-cultural and comparative method that allows Han to discern a variety of postures for his 60th Birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans; Tubingen: J.C.B. Mohr [Paul Sie- beck], 1987), pp. 95-109; Christopher M. Tuckett, 'Q, the Law and Judaism', in Barnabas Lindars (ed.), Law and Religion: Essays on the Place of the Law in Israel and early Christianity (Cambridge: James Clarke, 1988), pp. 90-101; John S. Kloppen- borg, 'Nomos and Ethos in Q', in James E. Goehring etal (eds.), Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings: In Honor of James M. Robinson (Sonoma, CA: Polebridge Press, 1990), pp. 35-48; Gerhard Dautzenberg, 'Tora des Menschensohnes? Kritische?- erlegungen zu Daniel Kosch', 5ZNS 36 (1992), pp. 93-103. Foreword 9 towards cultic sites, and in particular, to find models that may help to account for the shift in allegiance from one cultic site to another, or away from a central cultic shrine. Of particular interest are Han's comments on the differing criticisms of Buddhist temples in Korea by Buddhist and Confucian literati. There are important methodological caveats to be observed in applying cross-cultural observations to the situation of the Herodian Temple in Jewish Palestine. For unlike most other temple-states, Israel had a central- ized cult, from the time of the Deuteronomic reforms in the late seventh century BCE. This created its own set of special circumstances, especially for Jews living at a less than convenient distance from Jerusalem, which was certainly the case for Galilean Jews. The economy of a temple system normally presupposes a reciprocal exchange of tithes, sacrificial animals, and other commodities for the 'goods and services' that the temple has to offer. These include participation in periodic festivals and processions, and access to a site for purposes of prayer, instruction, and the display of votary inscriptions and monuments. The centralization of the cult in Jerusalem would have encumbered this exchange for Jews in Judah who lived, say, in Jericho or Hebron, but it would have been even more diffi- cult for Galileans to enjoy a meaningful participation in the temple. It has been estimated that a Galilean who wished to participate in one of the pil- grimage festivals would have to count on an absence from his or her home for at least three weeks, probably an impossibility for most living in a subsistence level agrarian society. It is this set of thorny problems that Han's work engages and attempts to resolve in an intelligible fashion. Part of his solution involves distinguish- ing between the texts of Q that adopt a rather polemical stance toward the Temple and its officers (Q 11.49-51) and to connect these with what on other grounds has been identified with the main redaction of Q, probably effected in the 60s CE. Later, perhaps as Han suggests, after the First Revolt and the destruction of the Temple, a more positive view arose, rather akin to Matthew's view of the Temple in Mt. 5.23-24; 23.21, or Luke's Jerusalem-centred and temple-centred construction of the cosmos. If Han's conclusions are essentially correct, they point to the complexity of the ideological terrain of the early Jesus movement. Far from exem- plifying a simple, unilinear drift away from the cultural context supplied by Second Temple Judaism, Q illustrates movements within that Judaism, corresponding in part at least to differing situations before and after the First Revolt.