A Social Identity Approach to the Rhetoric of Apocalyptic Violence in the Sayings Gospel Q

Previous articleNext article FreeA Social Identity Approach to the Rhetoric of Apocalyptic Violence in the Sayings Gospel QSimon J. JosephSimon J. JosephCalifornia Lutheran University Search for more articles by this author PDFPDF PLUSFull Text Add to favoritesDownload CitationTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints Share onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmailQR Code SectionsMoreThe Sayings Gospel Q (Quelle)—a hypothetical "text" extrapolated from the double tradition of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—is widely held to be a Palestinian Jewish work composed in Greek between 40 and 70 CE.1 Although there are ongoing debates about the existence of Q,2 its original language, geographical provenance, and sociological location—debates that show no signs of abating—Q remains a useful theoretical tool in the study of Christian origins since it is thought to represent a seminal "textual" moment in the preservation and transmission of the early Jesus tradition and the social formation of early Christian identity.3 Q represents a time in which the Jesus people began to differentiate themselves from other Jews by developing different ethical norms, religious practices, theological ideas, family values, and ethnic allegiances.4There is good reason, of course, to be cautious about presupposing the existence of an actual "community" or social formation "behind" the theoretical Q source.5 But if "texts" do contain literary clues that represent, reflect, and reveal their authors' social location(s), and one can posit discrete social contexts for particular texts, then it also seems reasonable to ask whether traces of social memberships may be embedded in texts, allowing the critic to retrieve these data.6 In our case, the Q author's evidently strained relationship(s) with other Jews provide(s) us with a particularly poignant example of nascent social identity formation.7 Q, in other words, represents useful data for a case study in social identity theory, a sociopsychological research method that explains how group identity is constructed in and through the exclusion of others by discrimination, prejudice, stereotyping, and intergroup conflict, attitudes that often lead to violence.8 Broadly construed, ethnicity and identity have increasingly been used as analytical tools in biblical scholarship.9 In recent years, social identity theory has also been adopted in studies of the New Testament.10 In this study, I seek to analyze the deployment of rhetorical violence in Q through the sociopsychological lens of social identity theory refracted, in particular, through the enigmatic figure of the son of man as symbolic of the social identity of the newly formed Jesus group. This study thus represents an effort to trace the origins, history, and development of Q's intergroup conflict, a conflict that represents not only a seminal moment in the emergence of early Christian discourse but a pivotal point in the so-called parting(s) of the way(s) between Jews and Christians and the construction of early Christian identity.11Constructing Social IdentityIn the social sciences, identity is a general term used to describe an individual or group's comprehension of him-, her-, or itself as a discrete, separate entity.12 Identity, like religion, culture, ethnicity, and nationalism, is socially constructed and characterized by the erection of boundaries that both enclose and exclude.13 That is, identity is a constellation of socially constructed subject positions constantly in flux.14 It is not innate but constructed and fought for and over in social space and has, at its margin, an excess, something more.15 An identity is a form of closure; it implies an "other," an excluded absence.16 The construction of identity is characterized by the creation of difference and the exclusion of the other; that is, it not only excludes difference, it also produces difference.17 Since the social order is threatened when the "symbolic boundaries" between categories are threatened, compromised or undermined,18 this generates the expulsion of that which is foreign, alien, or other.19 What is alien represents otherness, the "site of difference," and the projection of our fears and anxieties.20Ancient Jews tended to see the world in bipolar terms, that is, as Israel and the nations, or Jews and Gentiles.21 Similarly, ancient Greeks and Romans typically divided the world between themselves and "barbarians."22 Ethnic groups are made by their boundaries.23 Social groups are constructed through values, norms, and moral codes that provide a sense of identity.24 These boundaries have symbolic aspects that capture a variety of subjective meanings and condense a worldview by evoking emotional responses that draw on a mythic past and sum up a set of values.25 Much of the symbolic expression of community refers to a putative past or tradition.26 The past is a resource, but it is also "a selective construction of the past which resonates with contemporary influences,"27 often as an invention of tradition.28 Q contains numerous references to the social history and shared cultural memory of Israel that proved useful in its author's "peculiar recovery of the past."29 It is precisely Q's "peculiar" interpretation of social history and cultural memory that provided its sense of distinctiveness.30 Yet when socially and culturally constructed boundaries are undermined, tension increases and communities will often aggressively reaffirm their symbolic boundaries in an attempt to resolve the tension.31 Social collectivities construct boundaries as part of the process of exclusion.32 One group will attempt to secure for itself a privileged position at the expense of others through a process of subordination. Social closure functions not only as a form of exclusion but also as usurpation: a dominant group can monopolize and appropriate the resources of a subordinate group. Peter Berger describes this as "conceptual nihilation," a way of eliminating the perceived threat of an alternative symbolic universe.33 While it would be misleading to suggest that social identity inevitably leads to conflict, social conflict is an important element in consolidating social identity.34 Conflict serves a "group-binding function," facilitates group definition, and strengthens group structures.35 Ideology intensifies conflict.36 The closer the relationship, the more intense the conflict, since any challenge to a group's symbolic universe is treated as a threat to the very existence of the group itself.37 Moreover, conflict serves to construct identity regardless of whether participants are aware of these dynamics.38In social psychology, social identity theory suggests that a relatively simple sense of distinctiveness can lead people to act in discriminating ways.39 Social identity is an individual's self-concept derived from perceived membership in social groups.40 Developed in the 1970s and 1980s at Bristol University, social identity theory studies the social psychology of intergroup relations and discrimination.41 Attempting to identify the conditions that led members of one group to discriminate in favor of an in-group and against an out-group, studies found that individuals display favoritism when an in-group is central to their self-definition and a given comparison is meaningful or the outcome is contestable.42 The mere act of individuals categorizing themselves as group members is sufficient to lead them to display in-group favoritism.43 Social categorizations are "relational and comparative: they define the individual as similar to or different from, as 'better' or 'worse' than members of other groups."44 Individuals seek to attain distinctiveness by differentiating their in-group from a comparison out-group.45 The goal of this differentiation is "to maintain or achieve superiority over an out-group."46People strive to be the same as and different from other people in order to attain an "optimal distinctiveness," categorizing others into groups while minimizing differences within in-groups and accentuating differences in out-groups.47 Social competition manifests when one group attempts to change or improve its social location, a dynamic that often leads to social conflict between groups.48 These social dynamics help explain the hostile rhetoric and sectarian conflict in the early Jesus movement.Social identity theory is based on observations about categorization and the tendency to exaggerate perceived similarities and differences between members of in-groups and out-groups. This categorization produces stereotyping, bias, and discrimination.49 Categorization and the accentuation of difference are important factors in social identity formation.50 Social categorization leads to the construction of stereotypes, socially shared (collective) representations of groups that get perpetuated over time,51 embedded in culture and society,52 and institutionalized through socialization channels.53 Intergroup attitudes also become embedded in language and communication.54 Once formed, intergroup attitudes become institutionalized as part of the structure of societal institutions.55 Moreover, the tendency to attribute negative qualities in out-groups to "essences" further creates "insurmountable category divides" that make it extremely difficult to improve intergroup relations.56 As is well known, Judaism and Christianity today represent two sociologically distinct and theologically antithetical systems that have been constructed—over virtually two millennia—in and through insurmountable category divides. Reexamining Q's rhetoric, however, might illuminate how these antithetical systems originated in first-century Judea.Social Identity Theory and the Sayings Gospel QThe Sayings Gospel Q can be "excavated" and "unpacked" as early Jewish identity construction.57 It is not difficult to detect the process of sectarian identity formation in Q. Q redefines who belongs to Israel (Q 3:8, 13:29, 28, 13:30, 14:11, 14:16–23), reflects a polarized self-definition (Q 11:23), criticizes other Jews (Q 11:42, 39b, 43–44, 46b, 52, 47–48), rejects the villages that have rejected Jesus's message (Q 10:10–12, 13–15), displays self-awareness as a marginalized group (Q 10:2–3, 12:11–12), adopts a hostile stance toward "this generation" (Q 7:31, 11:16, 29–30, 11:49–51), and pronounces judgment on Israel (Q 13:35). Q is an example of nascent sectarian identity formation.Q is also an eschatological text.58 Eschatological expectations frame its beginning and end (Q 3:7–9; cf. Q 22:30). The beatitudes (Q 6:20–23) anticipate eschatological reversal. The end of the Inaugural Sermon (Q 6:46–49) warns of the consequences resulting from not following the teachings of Jesus.59 In Q 11:49–51, "this generation" is threatened with divine judgment. Q 12:8 promises that those who confess or deny Jesus now will be rewarded or punished, respectively, before the angels. Q 13:18–21 refers to an eschatological future. According to Q 13:24, a few will be able to enter through a "narrow" door. Q 12:54–56 refers to "signs" of the times. In Q 12:42–46 (the parable of the faithful and unfaithful servants), the coming time will be potentially disastrous for the unprepared. According to Q 17:22–37, the son of man will come without warning at any time. Clearly, "an eschatological outlook pervades large parts of the Q material."60Since the late 1960s, Q specialists have recognized that the dominant compositional theme of Q is this pronouncement of (apocalyptic and violent) judgment on "this generation."61 This overarching theme seems to reflect the social identity formation taking place among members of the Jesus movement at this time.62 Q represents a distinctive social group identity formation in process. Q begins with John's warning of an impending judgment (3:7–9). John calls the crowd(s) of Jew(s) "snakes' litter" and warns them of "the impending rage (or wrath)." He warns Jews not to rely solely on their ancestral lineage as Jews (Q 3:8) because God can easily replace them (with stones). Q 3:16b–17 reiterates this theme as John again predicts the arrival of "the coming one" who will separate the "wheat" from the "chaff" and burn the chaff in an everlasting fire. In Q 10:3, the disciples are sent out like "sheep among wolves" (Q 10:3), anticipating rejection and persecution (Q 10:10–12). Yet here rejection is met not with forgiveness but with the warning that "for Sodom it will be more bearable on that day than for that town" (Q 10:12). Q 13:34–35 describes Jerusalem, the Temple, and its elite as "desolate" or "forsaken" and laments how Jerusalem has killed the prophets sent to the city. In Q 11:16, 29–30, Jesus criticizes "this generation" as "evil." The author of Q has clearly drawn the "line" here between his in-group and all those on the "outside."In Q 7:31–35, "this generation" is criticized for not recognizing John and Jesus, whom they criticize as having a demon (Q 7:33) or being a "glutton and drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners" (Q 7:34). In Q 11:31–32, the Queen of Sheba will be raised at the judgment with "this generation" only to condemn it. Similarly, "Ninevite men" will arise at the judgment and condemn it. In a series of woes, the Pharisees (Q 11:42, 39b, 43–44) are criticized for their religious formality, hypocrisy, and vainglory, and the "exegetes of the law" (Q 11:46b, 52, 47–48) for their oppression of the people and their persecution of the prophets. In Q 11:49–51, "this generation" is again condemned as those who have killed and persecuted the prophets. Jesus warns that "a settling of accounts" will be required. In Q 12:39–40, the judgment will come without warning: that is, the son of man will come "like a thief." In Q 12:42–46, the judgment will be brought on the unfaithful "on a day he does not expect and at an hour he does not know." He will be "cut ... to pieces and given ... an inheritance with the faithless." In Q 17:23–24, the day of the "son of man" will come like lightning and will be like the "days of Noah" (Q 17:26), that is, like the time of the Flood when everyone "eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage" drowned. In Q 13:29, 28, "this generation" will be shut out of the kingdom, "thrown out into the outer darkness" where there will be "wailing and grinding of teeth."The author of Q perceived being met with hostility, nonbelief, opposition, rejection, and even persecution, perceptions typical of intergroup rivalry and identity contestation.63 This does not mean that the author(s) actually engaged in (or experienced) physical violence with other Jews; on the contrary, the rhetorical pronouncement and anticipation of apocalyptic violence and judgment effectively allowed the Jesus people of Q to criticize, condemn, and attack opponents without ever having to resort to physical violence. Similar expressions of rhetorical violence in the sectarian-ideological formation of the Qumran community reflect how a "narrative of violence" based on the group's origins and conflict with other Jews led to violence becoming "a central preoccupation of the Qumran community."64 The community was not able to act on or resolve these conflicts, so their internalized suppression of violence was expressed in elaborately imagined literary-rhetorical eschatological dramas of divine violence and vindication.65 The Qumran group's "violence" was sublimated, suppressed, and deferred and thus "never actually becomes real violence."66 It is this kind of rhetorical violence that seems to be reflected in the imaginative world—and presumably the underlying social history and social conflict(s)—of Q's authorial construction of symbolic boundaries. This is best illustrated in Q's identification of Jesus as the eschatological son of man.The Son of Man in Q: A Symbol of Social IdentityThe phrase son of man (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) appears over eighty times in the Gospels, predominantly as a reference to Jesus.67 Many scholars think that the historical Jesus used the expression,68 perhaps referring to a figure other than himself.69 Others have argued that none of the sayings go back to Jesus because the tradition derived from post-Easter reflection on his death and vindication.70 In either case, however, it is widely agreed that the son of man sayings are a distinctive feature of the Sayings Gospel.71There is an ongoing debate about whether the son of man sayings in Q represent an idiomatic use of the phrase, as in Q 7:34,72 where it is said that "the son of man has come eating and drinking,"73 and thus seems to be a self-reference rather than a title.74 Similarly, Q 9:58 refers to the son of man having "nowhere to lay his head," which seems to be a self-reference to Jesus's homeless, The with the idiomatic interpretation of however, is that the expression is also used as for Jesus in other That is, and of the phrase do not explain of the son of man or not the expression reflects Jesus's the identification of Jesus as the son of man is predominantly based on post-Easter reflection on the of Jesus, an apocalyptic Jesus in the of the son of son of man is a figure who and and serves as a divine of a symbolic social constructed between the author's group and the of This in the of a who will The son of man sayings in Q and composed by a of Jesus who adopted a sectarian stance of "this generation" for the message of the Jesus group. The son of man tradition reflects this author's perceived The identification of Jesus as the son of man represents a rejected and persecuted which the from Jesus's toward a different of eschatological of a Jewish only in us with a contemporary Jewish that explain how Jesus's rejection, and to be with the eschatological figure of the son of The author of Q may have been with to with the like a son of Q and the both the son of man as a figure of apocalyptic Q also the of the divided of God and and the that can be by In Q the of the son of man are as and The and the are also in the In Q 9:58 the son of man has to lay his Similarly, in not a place in which that Jesus is with in he is only in and that the son of man has a with in the the of these similarities are the the son of man the of is He has been given "the of which from the of his He is by within As in Q, the son of man is with In Q Jesus is a figure whom and have to In the son of man is by The of the son of man is also similar in both Q describes the son of man as a coming at an which is not the judgment brought by the son of man suggests that Q the interpretation of in the of rather than simple on Q which the eschatological and the coming son of also reflects a in the where and the Flood are the of the as in A of a and seems to be reflected in the Jesus tradition about the son of Jewish of the son of man tradition in the of and the of to a in which the original and of the figure was in order to nascent in the death and of Jesus, but the rhetorical to the son of man to as symbolic representations of group The son of man a symbolic constellation the the author's perceived or social the author's of and eschatological and into the Gospels of Matthew and the origins of the phrase in the Jesus tradition by in which son of man to be as a reference to Jesus's in to his to Social Social in the Sayings Gospel QThe Sayings Gospel contains traces and of the social conflict dynamics in social identity It stereotypes, like "this to criticize its It at its John and Q Pharisees as and the Jews of "this generation" who to to the of Jesus (Q Q "symbolic boundaries" between its in-group now with the rejected of and those who have rejected its It the Jesus people by that the will be and the Q Jesus and the Jesus people of Q from the and Q also Jewish and of and ethnic Q criticizes those who that having as is Q suggests that the is not for the represents the of a social group a distinctive within Judaism in tension and competition with other Jewish The Jesus people of Q to have themselves from other Jews as a of social conflict, and over Jesus's and the of this in Q reference to the Jesus people being in before In the Q worldview was its symbolic boundaries clearly there Q people and there was "this the pronouncement of judgment has been recognized as a theme in Q, a that Q was composed in as a of of or as a structure constructed with the overarching of history and the pronouncement of attempt to the distinctive and in One of the of Q is how the rhetorical violence of its apocalyptic judgment in tension with other the Inaugural Sermon (Q which has been as by The Inaugural Sermon contains a of sayings that God is and According to Q for disciples are to their and for those and for those that may become of he his son on and on the and to is by further to for the other (Q the (Q and not (Q It is not whether the author of Q this as a of Jewish a of the to or the will of God and for the future. It is also not whether these sayings be as Yet the of these sayings with the overarching theme of a coming judgment in Q that very different social can be constructed on whether one the that literary may reflect tradition or social it is reasonable to that Q does reflect a particular social history in first-century scholars have found it to draw about the social history of the Jesus movement by data from for that "the history of the Q community can be by the in its discourse in its of the sayings of The difference in between the of Q and the judgment in Q may reflect in the social and recognized that in social have been this and argued that the Q people "a of with that the language and rhetoric of judgment at those who the group or for Q describe of simple and with an social other to the of John as a of of rhetoric, and the of the son of man as an of judgment. Jesus's other are to the world at as a to this in the people of "this generation" rejected the message of John and that "the language of so in Q is to "the theme of a theme that the of boundaries and the term "this generation" not be used to construct a between Q and Q 13:34–35 laments and may even out for it in the Q's conflict with "this generation" is a Jewish conflict within This is the part of the Jewish That is, it is the and the elite who are being not the Jewish people or as a Sayings Gospel Q represents a poignant moment of in the history of the parting(s) of the way(s) between Judaism and According to social identity theory, can from over ethnic and of this in Q 3:8, where John warns the that Jewish ethnic identity in and of itself was not sufficient to the coming judgment. Q seems to reflect from Q reflects the or the of social conflict and In other words, intergroup conflict led to the construction of Q's Jewish the same the social dynamics for the apocalyptic rhetoric of violence in Q and its distinctive social identity the author of Q criticized those Jews who rejected and the message and teachings of the ethnic origins of the early Jesus movement early led to a of the with two being to social groups the and and the The of the movement and the of the Jewish movement 70 led to It is in theory, that ethnicity be in to a to which not to but that is not the end of the late Christian identity formation was Jewish and within the and social of the movement and would Jewish ethnicity Q was into the Gospels of Matthew and Q's apocalyptic rhetoric, which was at other an tool in the of early Christian and and was an Jewish conflict within first-century Judaism was into a conflict between Jews and The was constructed as the and Q's of "this generation" was toward the Jewish

Aesthetics · Art · Gospel · Identity (music) · Literature · Rhetoric · Sociology · Theology · Biblical Studies and Interpretation · Mormonism, Religion, and History · Philosophy · Religion and Society Interactions

• ‘Blessed is Whoever is Not Offended by Me’

  Open Access•Simon J Joseph•New Testament Studies•2011

  Add to list

• “The Land Is Mine” (Leviticus 25

  Open Access•Simon J Joseph•Biblical Theology Bulletin…•2020

  Add to list

• How Enoch Can Teach Us about Jesus

  Daniel Boyarin•Early Christianity•2011

  Add to list

• Why This New Race

  Denise Kimber Buell•Why This New Race•2005

  Add to list

• Social Identity Theory and Biblical Studies

  William S Campbell•Journal of Beliefs and Values•2014

  Add to list

• The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest of the Historical Jesus

  Open Access•John S Kloppenborg•Harvard Theological Review•1996

  Add to list

• Mark xiv. 62

  Open Access•Noel Perrin•New Testament Studies•1966

  Add to list

• Social identity theory

  Open Access•Rupert Brown•European Journal of Social…•2000

  Add to list

• When comparisons arise

  Daniel T Gilbert, R Brian Giesler et al.•Journal of Personality and Social…•1995

  Add to list