PAULINE THEOLOGY

(Published in L.Padovese (ed.), Atti del V Simposio Di Tarso Su S. Paolo Apostolo, Rome, pp. 39-60)

There is no doubt that Christian theology is heavily indebted to Pauline theology. What is, however, of even more significance is that any serious attempt to reconstruct the origins of Christianity depends to a considerable extent on the information and data which we gain from his authentic so-called great (or proto-pauline) epistles, the earliest extant written documents of Christianity.[1] It is an almost assured result of modern criticism, i.e. that our Gospel accounts - at least the Synoptic ones and more precisely that of St. Mark - form the basis for the quest of the life and teaching of the Historical Jesus. Some isolated sayings, of course, from the Sayings Source (Q) of the synoptic tradition entered into the scene, but they were always considered within the Marcan framework, which as a matter of fact depends on the theological understanding of the Christ event by that great apostle, more precisely on his dynamic interpretation of Jesus’ death on the cross.

The undisputed historical fact of Jesus’ death, coupled with his eschatological teaching, have undoubtedly played an important part in shaping the fundamental basics of the faith of the early Christian community, which were expanded with secondary contemporary (Greco-roman, Hellenistic, oriental etc.) elements to form what can be very loosely called “Christ cult”.

However, this picture which dominated biblical scholarship for almost a century has started to be challenged by the most recent results of N.T. scholarship, the focal point being the unexpected great progress that has taken place in the field of the Q research. Modern biblical theology more and more turned its attention to Q, and the understanding of Christian and/or Church origins has been undoubtedly determined by the scientific data of the second source of the Synoptic tradition, now lost, which seems to expound a radically different theological stance from the mainstream kerygmatic expression of the early Church.[2]

In fact, the challenge of Q to the conventional picture of Christian origins, and by extension also to the quest of the Historical Jesus and the predominance of the Pauline interpretation of the Christ event, is more far-reaching than the making of a little room for yet “another gospel”, another early Christian community. If Q is taken seriously into account the entire landscape of early Christianity with all that it entails may need to be radically revised, at least thoroughly reconsidered. Before I come to this point, however, allow me first to review the entire issue of the Q-Hypothesis, as I journeyed it during the last two decades.

Early in the ‘70s I set up in a scholarly journey into the mysteries of synoptic scholarship with hidden intention to disprove the Q-Hypothesis in its widely held form.[3] After almost five years of research, during which I considered the Q-Hypothesis from all literary critical angles, I was won to that hypothesis and became a fervent supporter of it. In my dissertation[4] I aligned to the view - now accepted by the almost all serious biblical scholars, at least by many more than in the ‘70s- that St. Matthew and St. Luke had used independently of each other another common source beside Mark. This source, as I argued in a series of articles presented in English immediately after the publication of my dissertation,[5] which is referred to as Q or Q-Source, but which is better attested as Q-Document, was a single written document, consisting of about 200 verses which form a literary whole.

Apart from the historical value of this source, more important for me were its theological characteristics. Questions like "What was the document's theological character?" "Was it a document with any christological significance or was just aimed for purely catechetical purposes?", "Is there any relationship between Q and wisdom tradition?" "Is there any relationship between the Q-Document and the Gospel of Mark, our earliest written Gospel?", have fascinated and at the same time puzzled me, as did to almost all N.T. scholars for more than two generations. And if scholarly research on the various literary characteristics of the Q-Document went through different and sometimes contradictory stages to reach its almost final statement in the 60s and 70s, with regard to the debate on its theological character and function the process was much more complex. Clues for all the above questions are only internally provided. But two points were particularly important: on the one hand, the prevailing view that Q consists almost entirely of sayings material, and on the other, the complete absence of any material concerning the passion kerygma and the theologia crucis in general.[6]

The conclusion I reached in my doctoral thesis (conducted twenty years ago in Great Britain and Greece and submitted at the University of Athens) can give us a taste of the state of research up to the 70s, being more or less the consensus of the majority of biblical scholars specialised in the synoptic tradition research[7]:

The history of investigation on the theology of Q can be divided into four stages, the turning points of which were the monumental works of A.Harnack[8], H.E.Tödt[9] and the joint volume by H.Köster and J.M.Robinson[10].

1. One definite conclusion from the investigation into the Q-Document is that it can no longer be considered as a Manual of Ethics. Apart from the fact that it also includes some narratives, either in integral form (cf. Lk 10.16ff. par), or as framing discourse material Lk 7.19ff. par; Lk 11.14ff. par.), a sufficient number of verses (cf. Lk 10.21f. par, Lk 4.1-13 par, Lk 11.14ff. par, Lk 7.18-35 par, i.e. passages with clear traces of christological colouring) suggest that the interests of the collector/compiler of the Q-Document, as well as of the community that lies behind it, were not didactic or hortatory. In addition, the familiar scene of the inauguration-call of the Prophets seems to have a parallel in the Temptation (and probably Baptism) story (Lk 4.1ff. par.). The similarities, however, of the Q-Document with the O.T. prophetic books does not necessarily mean that Q faithfully follows their pattern[11].

The eschatological element, which was neglected by Harnack, but accepted by Manson and so vigorously emphasised by Tödt and W.D.Davies is clearly prominent in Q. This applies both in the wider existentialist sense[12], i.e. the demand for a decision (cf. Davies' view)[13]. The strong expectation of the coming judgement in which Jesus will appear as Son of Man is to a considerable extent dominant in the Q-Document. Stanton's attack was successful only in diminishing the strength of the argument. The formal evidence of the "eschatological correlative" structure to which Edwards has drawn attention may be adduced as a further argument.

The most important result, however, of Q-research at the present stage is certainly the christological significance of the Q-Document. The community behind this document, if not the document itself, was concerned with the vital question "Who was Jesus?". But to detect the answer to this question with any precision is an extremely difficult task. As Stanton has pointed out, the Q-material is so varied that precludes a single solution. On the other hand all Q passages are available only in their Lucan or Matthaean edited form.

In these circumstances all that can be done is to spell out the most characteristic christological implications of Q. And in this respect the most prominent of all is undoubtedly the Son-of-Man christology. As it is well known, from all three kinds of the Son-of-Man sayings of the Gospel tradition, namely those referring to his earthly activity, his future coming and his passion and resurrection, the last one which is so prominent to the Gospel of Mark (and consequently to all our present Synoptics) is entirely absent from Q. However, the problem of the relationship between the Son of Man acting on earth and the coming one has not yet been solved.[14] What we can, therefore, say with a fair amount of certainty is that christology in Q was of a quite different kind from that of the mainstream primitive Orthodoxy.

To this very important characteristic of the Q-material one can also add the important notion of Jesus' rejection by his own people[15]. However, so far as the Q-Document is concerned, this rejection has nothing to do with Jesus' giving voluntarily "his soul as a ransom for many" (Mk 10.45 par.). It is something, which can be better understood on the analogy of the O.T. prophets[16], or even on the analogy of the ancient myth of the personified Wisdom. In Bultmann's words this myth runs as follows: "The pre-existent Wisdom, God's companion at creation, seeks a dwelling on earth among men; but she seeks it in vain; her preaching is rejected. She comes to her own, but her own do not receive her. She returns, therefore, to the heavenly world and dwells there in concealment"[17]. Of course, the Q community did not fully develop a wisdom christology, and in addition, the Sophia tradition is limited to only four or five passages (Lk 7.35 par; 10.21f. par; 11,49-51 par; 13.34f. par; and perhaps 11.31 par).[18] It is, however, to these passages, generally agreed to be of a wisdom influence, that the notion of Jesus' rejection is limited, too; and this can hardly be a coincidence. Nevertheless wisdom motifs, although undisputedly present in Q, are not of primary significance.

Apart from these most important theological characteristics of the Q-Document, one should not forget that missionary motifs have also played a part at least in the collection of some Q materials. By putting the emphasis on the ecumenical character of the Christian message the Q-Document gave a strong impetus on missionary activities in the Early Church.[19] We cannot also ignore that, despite the non-catechetical character of the Q-Document, there is still much in it which presents Jesus as the teacher of the community, thus bringing in mind a parallel situation in the Qumran community. The Q community seems also to have been fully aware of the O.T. thought,[20] but the use of the LXX in Q is very limited.[21] In general, the Q-Document fits better in a Jewish - Syrian milieu, where, in addition, the prestige of John the Baptist was considerably high. We have elsewhere shown that the reference to the Baptist in Q covers about 1/10 of the whole document.[22] But "although John is presented in it as functioning in the context of Heilsgeschichte, he still remains outside the Christian kerygma with a significance of his own".[23]

2. These are the most apparent indications of the theological characteristics of the Q-Document. However, to go any further and give a more accurate account of the theology of Q based solely on the extant readings of Matthew and Luke would be mere postulation. Since the Q sayings are now preserved only within their Matthaean and Lucan contexts, it is extremely difficult to know with some degree of certainty whether or not the emphasis, which the author (or the community) of Q put on certain logia, has been accepted by the later Synoptists. N.T. criticism has reached the conclusion that at least in few cases (cf. e.g. Lk 11.49 par; Lk 7.35 par)[24] there are obvious indications of a later redaction by one of the later Synoptists. With that in mind one can also account for certain theological expressions in Q which both the later Synoptists, and independently of each other, modified in the same or different directions. The fact that Q did not serve purely didactic purposes but rather theological ones favours such a view.

One may question the current American trend to argue that the Q-Document should be read through Gnostic spectacles, and therefore be closely connected with later Gnosticism. That it belongs, however, to a tradition totally different from what comes out of the Acts and Pauline evidence is a reasonably based hypothesis. Granted that the Q-Document did exist in a written form,[25] the lack of any reference to it in all early Christian literature supports the hypothesis. In addition, the insistence of the Gospel of Thomas, a non orthodox writing, that “Óstij ¨n t¾n ρμηνε…aν tîn λόγων τούτων εÈρήσκ¨ θανάτß oÙ γεύσηται”,[26] as well as the sharp distinction made by Polycarp of Smyrna, an admitted leader of early orthodoxy, between the theology of the Cross and the logia tradition in favour of the former,[27] strongly supports the view that the Q-Document did not develop along the lines of Pauline, or even Jerusalem theology. It is more likely to have been the product of a Christian community which was outside the sphere of the direct influence of the Pauline and Jerusalem churches, i.e. of what has come to be called the Primitive Orthodoxy.

If, however, it is extremely difficult to go beyond the possible redaction made by both Matthew and Luke which could have perhaps enabled us to uncover the hidden theology of Q, there is another legitimate way forward: to consider the final arrangement and grouping of the Q materials. According to the procedural principles set up by us[28] (and accepted by J.S.Kloppenborg,[29] and through him by the International Q Project) the Q-Document must have consisted originally of the following verses (we give below only the Lucan verses; those passages detected by the last two principles, and therefore less probable, are given in brackets): Lk. 3. 7-9, 16b f.; 4. 1-13; 4. 20-23, 27-38, 41-49; 7. 1-10, 18-20, 22-28 (Mt. 11. 12f.), Lk. 7. 31-35; 9. 57-60a, (60b-62); 10. 2-3, (Mt. 10. 16b), Lk. 10. 4-16, (19-20), 21-24; 11. (2-4), 9-26, (27f.), 29-32, 39-52; 12. 2-12, 22-31, (32-38), 39f., 42-46, (49,51-56); 13. 18-21, (23-30), 34f.; 17. 23-37; (21. 34-36). Unbracketed verses 175; Total verses 211. The above verses certainly form the core of the Q-Document. One possibility, nevertheless, has to be taken seriously into account; namely that some sayings, though not many, might have been totally eliminated by St. Matthew and St. Luke mainly because of the Q-Document's different theological orientation.[30]

The verses detected by our principles can be easily classified under the following headings (in each section we give only the first and last Lukan verses of the table including those in brackets):

If this procedure is at all sound, then the Q-Document must have run as follows: It starts with a reference to the Baptist's appearance followed by a short account of his eschatological teaching, and a confession of Jesus' higher authority. This authority of Jesus is tested by a number of temptations which in fact bear witness to his origin (Son of God). After that confirmation, Jesus addresses the crowd with his authoritative teaching. The response of the people is immediate, ranging from some Gentiles to John's disciples and other individuals. Those who follow him and accept his teaching are involved in a mission to the world which also includes the healing of the sick. Jesus rejoices at the success of that mission. He thanks his Father, blesses his followers, and teaches them how to pray, ensuring at the same time God's response. On the other hand, those who reject him are confronted with him in a series of controversies which culminate with Jesus' denunciation of the scribes and Pharisees. This confrontation brings, in effect, crisis to Israel, the climax of which is to come at the End of the time, involving heavy persecutions for those who have followed him. Jesus exhorts them to stand firm and to confess fearlessly, and advises them not to care about earthly things; and of course, "to be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour, when (they) are not expecting him" (Lk 12.40=Mt 24.44). Jesus makes this clear in a series of parables and isolated sayings, at the end of which he weeps over Jerusalem because of the disobedience of her people. The entire document ends with an eschatological discourse which refers to the soon expected Day of the Son of Man.[31]

From the above reconstruction and classification of its material the Q-Document does not seem to reveal the historical interest our canonical four Gospels show. Its most important feature is the complete lack of the passion narrative. And not only that; it also lacks all references to the passion, either as direct predictions (Mk 8.31 par; 9.31 par; 10.33f par) or as indirect hints (Mk 10.38 par etc.). This is almost an evidence (though ex silentio) that the collector/compiler of the Q-Document had no interest on the historical basis of the Christian message which culminates according to almost all canonical evidence to Jesus' Cross and Resurrection. It is also quite characteristic that the essential term εÙαγγέλιον,[32] which in both the Pauline and the canonical Synoptic tradition is connected with the kerygma about Jesus' earthly life, his Cross and Resurrection, is nowhere to be found in Q. Similarly, the Q-Document never refers to "the twelve,"[33] either by name or as a term designating the historical dimension of the Christian message. In other words, the centre of gravity in Q's theology is the eschatological dimension of the Christian movement.

The most serious result of the Q-research since the time I finished my doctoral dissertation is the affirmation that, if we accept the existence of a Q-Document to explain away the literary, historical, and theological problems of the synoptic tradition, it is not only legitimate but also imperative to study it in its own merit. Let alone that the Q tradition - better than any other existing tradition of the early Christian literature - fills the gap of the most lively and normative period between the life and teaching of the Historical Jesus and the emergence of our narrative gospels (and to some extent also the rest of the N.T. literature), which later gave the Church, but also modern scholarship, the official and standard account of Christian origins. The Q-Document is a well organised unit with an integral theological outlook, which can eventually offer a more plausible explanation of the twilight period of the emergence of Christianity and its advance to conquer the Greco-roman world. The picture it gives is complete enough to reconstruct the history of the early Church to the extent no other document from the earliest times has done, at least to this moment.

In my view, this present development in biblical scholarship at the end of this century, with the enormous consequence for Christian origins (as well as the quest for the Historical Jesus) it entails, can only be compared with the great and far-reaching shift in paradigm caused by such scholars as J.Weiss[34] and A.Schweitzer[35] around the turn of the 20th century. They were both instrumental in redirecting attention from a Jesus of Nazareth as a teacher of humane ethic to a Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet, a radical visionary of the cataclysmic end of the world. At the other end on the liberal side A.Harnack ironically tried to use Q for his counter attack in 1907 in his Sprüche und Reden Jesu. Weiss and Schweitzer’s suggestion to the scholarly world has prevailed throughout the century and was further substantiated on both literary-historical and theological grounds by prominent, though diverse, scholars such as R. Bultmann[36] and C.H.Dodd,[37] both of whom assumed that Jesus’ message was essentially apocalyptic.[38] One can also easily recall E.Käsemamm’s widely discussed conclusion that “the apocalyptic is the matrix of all Christian theology”.[39]

What, however, puzzled the N.T. scholars ever since the consolidation of this scholarly view, was the existence among the so-called “authentic” - or rather undisputed - dominical logia of both apocalyptic announcements and wisdom sayings. In fact, in all reconstructions of the teaching of Jesus - based both on Q but also on the rest of the synoptic tradition - a quite substantial number of the sayings can better be classed as wisdom than apocalyptic. The obvious question is how an apocalyptic hero announcing the end of the present world can offer at the same time instruction for living in it. The famous “interim Ethik” of A.Schweitzer is well known as the first, though unsuccessful, attempt to offer a solution to the problem.[40]

However, the languages of wisdom and apocalyptic assume different views of the world, the literary genre of sophiology is on its basics different from that of the apocalypic literature, and the apocalyptic prophets as a class are very often distinguished from the sages, the former being better known for their predictions of judgement while the latter normally offer individual instructions and propose ways of social health and healing. Raymond Brown underlined their difference by pointing out that “they differed in many ways almost to the point of opposition”.[41]

It is not accidental, therefore, that biblical scholars found extremely difficult to imagine how Jesus have merged both the apocalyptic and wisdom element and language in a single message, more so in view of the fact that in Q these two components constitute the basis of Jesus’ language and teaching. Naturally, then, historians “invested enormous energy in the investigation of the ancient near eastern literatures of proverbial wisdom and apocalyptic vision, seeking to understand each worldview and looking for ways in which each may have been related to the other.”[42]

From the mid 70’s, the time I completed my research, the Q studies have experienced a dramatic development, which was actually the result of the tension between these two basic - if not exclusive - elements of the Q traditions, i.e. sapiential and apocalyptic, in terms both of form and of content. Inevitably the focal point in Q research has shifted from the field of the theology of Q in its final form to its redaction, i.e. the previous editions (layers, stages etc) of its existence; from the end-document which was used by the authors of our later Synoptics to the field of the pre-history of the Q-Document.[43] Although D.Lührmann[44] on this side of the Atlantic was the first to introduce into Q studies the layering by postulating a conscious editing by the editor(s) of Q of heterogenious saying material, it was the American scholars, more precisely the Q Seminar of the Society of Biblical Literature, which under the chairmanship of J.M.Robinson attempted a stratigraphic analysis and redactional division of the various stages and clusters of the entire non Marcan sayings material (loosely described as Q) most notably in the case of J.S.Kloppenborg[45]. The question, therefore, of the theology of Q in the last two decades has shifted to a completely new area, which affected also the picture of origins of Christianity, and consequently the quest of the Historical Jesus. It is quite characteristic that back in Europe P.Hoffmann, from the Catholic University of Bamberg in Germany (who is also engaged in the International Q Project together with Robinson and Kloppenborg[46]), has recently published his minor Q studies[47], in “an attempt to repair,” as he himself states, “to a deficit in (his) Habilitationschrift, Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle”.[48]

The major breakthrough in the “wisdom or apocalyptic” dilemma undoubtedly occurred in 1964 with J.M.Robinson,[49] who underlined the formal similarity of Q with such early Christian documents as the Gnostic Gospel of Thomas, the Didache, but also with smaller units of sayings material of the synoptic tradition, like the parables in Mark 4 etc. The inevitable conclusion of his approach was that the literary genre of Q was that of the wisdom literatures of the Old Testament, the near East and the ancient Egypt, that the sayings of the Q Document were «λόγοι σοφîν» (cf. Prov 22.17), that the idiom of wisdom and not of apocalyptic was fundamental to the collection, and that Jesus’ disciples (at least those of the Q community) understood them as instructions of a sage teacher, not of an apocalyptic prophet. Of equal significance at this point was H.Koester’s observation that Q most probably has experienced a shift in its generic trajectory, beginning with one genre and moving through a redactional process to another.[50] These findings in fact rekindled the issue of reconsideration of the theological character of Q. However, the prevailing among scholars view, first presented in 1969 with sound argumentation by Lührmann,[51] was that the prophetic and apocalyptic logia in Q were not marginal, secondary or peripheral in the overall structure of the document, but they form an integral part in its editing, with the theme of judgement functioning as an organizational principle for the entire Q material.

For almost two decades the priority of the apocalyptic over the sapiential element in Q was been confirmed or at least accepted with minor variations in a number of scholarly works,[52] until J.S.Kloppenborg[53] set out to scrutinize the entire hypothetical end-document of Q. Having reconstructed the Q-Document on the basis mainly of our procedural principles[54] he came to the following significant conclusion: the wisdom sayings in Q on strictly literary grounds cannot be secondary to the apocalyptic ones, since they were all formed without the slightest interest in, or knowledge of, the theme of judgement; even more significant was his conclusion, that almost all prophetic and apocalyptic material either presuppose or clearly incorporated the wisdom sayings. The prophetic apocalyptic material, he argued, were definitely added to Q at a later stage of its composition.[55]

The implications of Kloppenborg’s findings - if the shift from wisdom to apocalyptic be explained - can also have some consequences for the quest of the historical Jesus and a fresh look at Christian origins. Indeed, Mack himself in his fascinating - though not entirely justified from a scholarly perspective[56]- book The Lost Gospel,[57] a brilliant book intended for non-technical readership, has taken these findings to their extreme, arguing that “as for Jesus, it would mean that he had probably been more the sage, less the prophet. And as for Christian origins, it would mean that something other than an apocalyptic message and motivation may have impelled the new movement and defined its fundamental attraction”.[58] And moving a further step he (and a few others) suggested the so-called Cynic alternative. This is a new interpretation of Christian origins and a new alternative of understanding the Historical Jesus, which slowly but steadily gains support in scholarly circles on both sides of the Atlantic.[59] All the more because of the wide acceptance of the rhetoric approach to the N.T. literature, and the tendency to look more and more to Hellenistic rather than Jewish parallels for Christian origins. I myself do not align with those who all-too-hasty dismiss any consideration of the roots of the early Christian tradition other than the established and widely accepted one.[60] Even though the notorious “Jesus Seminar”[61] has given rise to justified reactions, especially after the radical popular books on the Historical Jesus that have recently come out.[62]

As far as Q is concerned the cynic parallels, both formal and in content, are indeed striking. The aphoristic style in many of the Q material, especially in its earliest edition (Q¹, or first stage), the imperatives, injunctions and instructions, maxims, admonitions and lores, sometimes in a keen, pungent, terse character, as well as the unconditional discipleship demanded in the most authentic dominical sayings, together with the unconventional behaviour (begging, absurdity, unsocial living, voluntary poverty, renunciation of needs and critique of riches, pretention and hypocricy etc.), are all signs that make the Jesus’ movement, it is argued, resemble not to the prophetic apocalyptic (traditional view), not even to the traditional proverbial wisdom (Robinson’s view[63]), but rather to the popular cynic philosophy. If this interpretation is proved true, then early Christianity has to dissociated from either the “reformation” model (and also the “sectarian” one: “true Israel”, authentic “people of God” etc.) or the “revolutionary” (or even the “utopian”) explanation of Jesus’ and the early Church’s teaching and overall behaviour. The cynic alternative demands a total dismantling of the traditional picture.

If one takes in mind that the prevailed modern view of the term “cynic”, “cynical” etc. does not represent accurately what the ancient cynics really were, and sees the cynics just as the Greek analogue of the O.T. Hebrew prophets, then one may think that no much difference would be caused if Jesus’ words (at least those stemming from Q) are read against the background of the O.T. prophets or against the background of the Greek cynics. The problem, however, is much more complex if one goes further and deeper into Jesus’ message and to the effect it has for the social and community life. For the cynics’ general attitude to the social evil is romantic and naturalistic and by no means radical and dynamic. In short, it was a call for individuals to live against the stream, and invitation to swim against the social currents that threatened to overwhelm and silence human dynamism; not a program offered for the reformation of the society. The cynics’ critique of cultural conventions rest not on society as a system but on the shoulders of the individual. It may not be too much an exaggeration, if one characterises the “cynic alternative” as a spiritual child of the Enlightenment and the values of the western individualism. For social institutions were not under attack by the cynics; they rather invited the individual to live “according to nature”. The striking indeed evidence of the picture one gets from the earlier strata of the sayings material of the Gospels (and more precisely from the most primitive version of Q) was what made Mack declare that on the basis of the evidence of Q “Jesus was much more like a Cynic-teacher than a Christ-saviour or messiah with a program for the reformation of the second-temple Jewish society and religion”.[64]

In a recent article J.M.Robinson,[65] refuted from a scholarly perspective and through various ankles (history of religions, translation, rhetoric, historical [the cynic getup], redactional [the editions of Q] etc.) Mack’s cynic hypothesis, characterising his book “an eminently readable, indeed fascinating and entertaining, achievement in popular scholarship”,[66] which nevertheless “makes the Cynic hypothesis too easy for the popular audience and too difficult for the critical scholar”.[67] But the problem of the origins of early Christianity and the challenge to the conventional picture of the Historical Jesus, caused by the almost universal acceptance of Q as the earliest written, though in successive stages, account of Gospel tradition, is still there. And we are only at the beginning.

Fr. Benedict Viviano in a recent article[68] suggested that from the examination of the doubly attested sayings of the synoptic tradition (Q-Mark) one can almost reach the same (with the one prevailing at the moment in scholarship and in Christian tradition in general) conclusion, with the exception perhaps of the Eucharist. On my part I am not so optimist; and in addition it seems to me that one should start from exactly the opposite end; and Eucharist and Q are by no means irreconcilable entities.

In my contribution to last year’s VI Symposium on John the Apostle in Ephesos[69], presenting the johannine view of the Eucharist, I argued for the Eucharist as a communion event and a proleptic manifestation of the eschata, i.e. for its ecclesial and diaconal dimension, and the anti-sacramentalistic character of it at almost the last end of the spectrum of the N.T. literature.[70] And this understanding of the Eucharist, not so much as a cult or rite, but primarily as a dynamic expression of the people of God and a glimpse and foretaste of the Kingdom to come, I also tested by reference to the other end of the spectrum, the most ancient stage of primitive Christianity, i.e. the Q-Document.[71]

In a recent survey of the N.T. evidence on the Eucharist in the revised edition of The Study of Liturgy,[72] there is no mention at all of the pre-pauline Christianity. The common view till very recently was that there is no history, or more precisely pre-history,[73] of Eucharist prior to Paul, i.e. prior to the mid-50s. At a first glance we get the impression that there is no reference to the Eucharist in Q. But in the N.T. we have only a skeletal pre-history of the liturgical praxis of the primitive church, based on small pieces of evidence, to be pieced together “knowing that many of the bits are irretrievably lost”.[74] But as I argued,[75] one should consider the place of Eucharist in Q on a different level. The reconstruction of the Q-Document, we referred to above, if it is viewed as a guiding principle for uncovering the theological characteristics of the community behind it, it can also provide some hints for what we broadly call Eucharist.

Exegetes, as well as liturgists, are still puzzled[76] about what it appears as a seeming dissimilarity between the N.T. evidence and our earliest account in the post-apostolic period, with regard to the process of events in the celebration of the Eucharist: first the eucharistic meal and then an extended period of common prayer and praise and of teaching (Synoptic Last Supper accounts and Paul, at least in Corinth), or the other way around (Justin, and the church’s practice thereafter). Jones-Hickling have stated that “how and when this reversal took place we do not know; it turned out to be universal, and so it may have happened quite early, early enough to be reflected in Luke 24.25-35 and possibly in John 6, where extended teaching precedes the allusion to the Eucharist (if such it is) at vv. 51-58”.[77]

I have shown[78] that he structure of the Q-Document exhibits a striking parallel with the church’s “celebration” of the Eucharist, as first described by Justin Martyr in his 1st Apology 65, where the celebration was preceded by biblical readings, sermon and intercession. If we take the entire section of Q on Jesus’ Teaching together with the one on Response to Jesus’ Teaching as the universal Christian liturgical rite which precedes the Eucharist proper, i.e. The Liturgy of the Word, then all one has to find is some connection of the following section (Jesus and his Disciples) with the Eucharistic Liturgy.[79] It is indeed striking that Jesus’ Thanksgiving (εÙχαριστία) to the Father (Lk 10.21f. par) not only resembles to the liturgical anaphora of the later Christian Eucharistic rite, but it is also structured in regard to the Lord’s Prayer in exactly the same way with the post-anaphora rites. Both in the Q-Document and in the Eucharistic Liturgy the Lord’s Prayer follows the Anaphora.

The question which arises is whether the evidence allows the argument that the Q-Document is throughout structured according to the primitive Church’s eucharistic practice. The answer to that question should be definitely no; but if we take the Eucharist neither as a cult nor as a ritual, but as “the living expression of the ecclesial identity of the early Christian community as a koinonia of the eschata”,[80] a proleptic manifestation of the Kingdom of God (an idea that plays a significant part even from the first stage of the Q-Document [Q¹]),[81] in other words as the vivid act of the community by which the faithful prolepticly lived the coming new world, then the answer could be: yes, there is some connection between the most eschatologically oriented document - though not apocalyptic - of the N.T. tradition (Q) and the most eschatological act of the Christian community (Eucharist).[82]

In my view this is the only effective and legitimate defence against the dismantling for Christian theology development in recent synoptic (Q) scholarship. Of course, a widely accepted solution to the problem of the “paradigm shift” in early Christian (pauline?) theology is pending, but this is subject for another paper. For me it is a problem closely connected to methodology. And personally I am totally convinced that the time has come to distance ourselves as much as possible from the dominant to modern scholarship syndrome of the priority of the texts over the experience, of theology over ecclesiology. There are many scholars who cling to the dogma, imposed by the post-Enlightenment and post-Reformation hegemony over all scholarly theological outlook (and not only in the field of biblical scholarship or of Protestant theology), which can be summarised as follows: what constitutes the core of our Christian faith, cannot be extracted but from the expressed theological views, from a certain depositum fidei, be it the Bible, the Church (or Apostolic) Tradition, the writings of the Fathers, the canons and certain decisions of the Councils, the magisterium included, etc.; very rarely is there any serious reference to the eucharistic/eschatological communion-event that has been responsible and produced these views.

One has to admit that very early, even from the time of St. Paul, there has been a shift - no matter for what reasons[83]- of the centre of gravity from the (eucharistic) experience to the (Christian) message, from eschatology to christology (and further and consequently to soteriology), from the event (the Kingdom of God), to the bearer and centre of this event (Christ, and more precisely his sacrifice on the cross).[84]Although some theologians consider this second concept, which was mingled with the original biblical/semitic thought, as stemming from Greek philosophers (Stoics and others), nevertheless it is more than clear that the horizontal-eschatological view was the predominant one in the early church, both in the New Testament and in subsequent Christian literature. The vertical-soteriological (and Pauline) view was always understood within the context of the horizontal-eschatological perspective as supplemental and complementary.[85]

III. Response to Jesus’ Teaching ) } (=T h e L i t u r g y o f t h e W o r d ?)

IV. Jesus and his Disciples } (=T h e E u c h a r i s t i c L i t u r g y ?)

10:2 œlegen d prÕj aÙtoÚj, `O mn qerismÕj polÚj, oƒ d ™rg£tai Ñl…goi· de»qhte oân toà kur…ou toà qerismoà Ópwj ™rg£taj ™kb£lV e„j tÕn qerismÕn aÙtoà. Øp£gete· „doÝ ¢postšllw Øm©j æj ¥rnaj ™n mšsJ lÚkwn. m¾ bast£zete ball£ntion, m¾ p»ran, m¾ Øpod»mata, kaˆ mhdšna kat¦ t¾n ÐdÕn ¢sp£shsqe. e„j¿n d' ¨n e„sšlqhte o„k…an, prîton lšgete, E„r»nh tù o‡kJ toÚtJ. kaˆ ™¦n ™ke‹ Ï uƒÕj e„r»nhj, ™panapa»setai ™p' aÙtÕn ¹ e„r»nh Ømîn· e„ d m»ge, ™f' Øm©j ¢nak£myei. ™n aÙtÍ d tÍ o„k…v mšnete, ™sq…ontej kaˆ p…nontej t¦ par' aÙtîn, ¥xioj g¦r Ð ™rg£thj toà misqoà aÙtoà. m¾ metaba…nete ™x o„k…aj e„j o„k…an. kaˆ e„j ¿n ¨n pÒlin e„sšrchsqe kaˆ dšcwntai Øm©j, ™sq…ete t¦ paratiqšmena Øm‹n, kaˆ qerapeÚete toÝj ™n aÙtÍ ¢sqene‹j, kaˆ lšgete aÙto‹j, ”Hggiken ™f' Øm©j ¹ basile…a toà qeoà. e„j ¿n d' ¨n pÒlin e„sšlqhte kaˆ m¾ dšcwntai Øm©j, ™xelqÒntej e„j t¦j plate…aj aÙtÁj e‡pate, Kaˆ tÕn koniortÕn tÕn kollhqšnta ¹m‹n ™k tÁj pÒlewj Ømîn e„j toÝj pÒdaj ¢pomassÒmeqa Øm‹n· pl¾n toàto ginèskete Óti ½ggiken ¹ basile…a toà qeoà. lšgw Øm‹n Óti SodÒmoij ™n tÍ ¹mšrv ™ke…nV ¢nektÒteron œstai À tÍ pÒlei ™ke…nV.

10:13 "OÙa… soi, Coraz…n· oÙa… soi, Bhqsaid£· Óti e„ ™n TÚrJ kaˆ Sidîni ™gen»qhsan aƒ dun£meij aƒ genÒmenai ™n Øm‹n, p£lai ¨n ™n s£kkJ kaˆ spodù kaq»menoi metenÒhsan. pl¾n TÚrJ kaˆ Sidîni ¢nektÒteron œstai ™n tÍ kr…sei À Øm‹n. kaˆ sÚ, KafarnaoÚm,

`O ¢koÚwn Ømîn ™moà ¢koÚei, kaˆ Ð ¢qetîn Øm©j ™m ¢qete‹· Ð d ™m ¢qetîn ¢qete‹ tÕn ¢poste…lant£ me."

10:21 'En aÙtÍ tÍ érv ºgalli£sato [™n] tù pneÚmati tù ¡g…J kaˆ epen,

lšgw g¦r Øm‹n Óti polloˆ profÁtai kaˆ basile‹j ºqšlhsan „de‹n § Øme‹j blšpete kaˆ oÙk edan, kaˆ ¢koàsai § ¢koÚete kaˆ oÙk ½kousan.

e. The Lord’s Prayer (=T h e P o s t - a n a p h o r a L o r d’ s P r a y e r ?)

11:9 k¢gë Øm‹n lšgw, a„te‹te, kaˆ doq»setai Øm‹n· zhte‹te, kaˆ eØr»sete· kroÚete, kaˆ ¢noig»setai Øm‹n. p©j g¦r Ð a„tîn lamb£nei, kaˆ Ð zhtîn eØr…skei, kaˆ tù kroÚonti ¢noig[»s]etai. t…na d ™x Ømîn a„t»sei tÕn patšra Ð uƒÕj „cqÚn, kaˆ ¢ntˆ „cqÚoj Ôfin aÙtù ™pidèsei; À kaˆ a„t»sei òÒn, ™pidèsei aÙtù skorp…on; e„ oân Øme‹j ponhroˆ Øp£rcontej o‡date dÒmata ¢gaq¦ didÒnai to‹j tšknoij Ømîn, pÒsJ m©llon Ð pat¾r [Ð] ™x oÙranoà dèsei ¢gaq¦ to‹j a„toàsin aÙtÒn.

[1]St. John Chrysostom, the well-known Antiochean exegete and perhaps one of the greatest theologians of the Church of all time, acknowledges St. Paul the apostle as the most accurate and authentic interpreter of the Historical Jesus. This picture has been actually reinforced with slight variations in our recent critical era.

[2]H.W.Attridge has rightly stated that recent research on Q “has revealed the complexity of early Christian literary activity and also contributed to a reassessment of the originating impulse(s) of the whole Christian movement” (“Reflections on Research into Q”, Semeia 55 (1991) 223-34, p.223).

[3]Cf my first scholarly contribution “Behind Mark: Towards a Written Source”, NTS 20 (1974), pp. 52-60.

[4] Η περί της Πηγής των Λογίων Θεωρία, Athens 1977

[5]"Did Q Exist?" Εκκλησία και Θεολογία 1 (1980) 287-327; "The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document", NT 20 (1978) 49-73. (The above articles are the Εnglish version of chs. I and II of my doctoral dissertation); “The Original Order of Q. Some Residual Cases”, J.Delobel (ed.), Logia, Leuven 1982, 379-387.

[6]Of quite relevant importance is definitely the relationship between Q and Mark, since Mark is considered the best attestation of theologia crucis. Cf. P.Vassiliadis, "Prolegomena to a discussion on the Relationship Between Mark and the Q-Document", ΔBM 3 (1975) 31-46, where I concluded that the whole problem needs radical reconsideration, and that "two points at least seem quite clear: Firstly the Q-Document cannot have depended on Mark; and secondly, the relationship between Mark and Q has to be determined on grounds other than literary. The whole problem, therefore, would seem to reduce itself to the following questions: (i) Did St. Mark have any knowledge of Q-traditions? (ii) If he did, is there any explicit evidence that he was acquainted with the Q-Document itself? (iii) If he was, did he derive any material therefrom? and finally (iv) If so, was his attitude to the Q-materials receptive or critical?" .

[7]What follows is an almost verbatim translation of the conclusions (pp. 143ff.) of ch. III of my Η περί της Πηγής των Λογίων Θεωρία, where I also reviewed the scholarship on the theological characteristics of Q up to that period (pp. 121ff.).

[8]Sprüche und Reden Jesu: Die zweite Quelle des Matthäus und Lukas, Leipzig, 1907, translated into English under the title The Sayings of Jesus , London, 1908.

[9]Der Menschensohn in der synoptischen Uberlieferung , Gutersloh, 1959, translated into English under the title The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition, London, 1965. Tödt deals with Q in detail in pp. 232ff.

[10]Trajectories Through Early Christianity, Philadelphia, 1971, pp. 71-113

[11]See also G.N.Stanton, "On the Christology of Q," B. Lindars-S.Smalley (eds.), Christ and Spirit in the N.T.: Studies in Honour of C.F.D.Moule, Cambridge 1973, 27-42, p. 39.

[12]We are following here O.Cullmann's terminology (Salvation in History, ET London 1967, pp. 78-79).

[13]According to S.Agouridis Η επί του Όρους Ομιλία, Athens 1975) Jesus demands from his disciples "either all or nothing".

[14]Cf. R.H.Fuller, The New Testament in Current Study, London 1963, p. 91. Most recently J.M.Robinson (“The Son of Man in the Sayings Gospel Q”, C.Elsas and others (eds.), Tradition and Translation . Festschrift für C.Colpe zum 65. Geburstag, Walter de Gruyter Berlin & New York 1994 315-335) has argued that “Q tended to indicate the initial stages of the christological development from a non-titular, non-apocalyptic idiom of a generic meaning, that by implication could have especially the speaker in mind, as used by Jesus” (p. 335).

[15]D.Lührmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, Neukirchen 1969, a study of great importance as we shall see later on) expresses the same view by referring to the tension between Jesus and this generation (“η γενεά αύτη”, pp. 24ff ).

[16]Cf. O.H.Steck, Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten, Neukirchen 1967, esp. p. 253ff.

[17]R.Bultmann, "Die religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund des Prologs zum Johannesevagelium", EYXAPIΣTHPION: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments. H. Gungel zum 60. Geburtstag II (1923), pp.10f.

[18]Cf.F.Christi, Jesus Sophia:Die Sophia-Christologie bei den Synoptikern, Zürich 1970, pp.61f; cf. also Lk 9.58=Mt 8.20.

[19]S.Agouridis, Εισαγωγή εις την Κ.Δ.., Athens 1971, 108.

[20]J.C.Hawkins, “Probabilities as to the so-called Double Tradition of St.Matthew and St.Luke,” W.Sanday (ed.), Oxford Studies on the Synoptic Problem, 95-138, p. 128.

[21]The use of LXX apart from Lk 7,27 is limited only to the narrative of Temptation. S.E. Johnson ("The Biblical Quotations in Matthew," HTR 36 (1943), 135-53, esp. pp. 144f.) has argued that the Q-Document, before its use by the later synoptists, had been influenced by LXX. Cf. also idem, "The LXX and the New Testament", JBL 56 (1937), 331-45.

[22]P.Vassiliadis, "The Function of John the Baptist in Q and Mark", Θεολογία· 46 (1975), 406.

[23]Ibid. 412, 408.

[24]In the first instance St. Matthew has changed the more authentic “η σοφία του Θεού” (Lk 11.49a) with the word "(Mt 18.34), thus identifying Jesus with the personified Wisdom. Similarly in the second case "τέκνων" (Lk 7.35) has been replaced by "έργων" in Mt 11.19.

[25]Cf. my articles “The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document,” and “The Original Order of Q”.

[26]This is the introductory logion of the Gnostic Gospel of St. Thomas, also to be found in Greek in the 654th Oxythynchus papyrus; cf. J.A. Fitzmyer, "The Oxyrhynchus Logoi of Jesus and the Coptic Gospel according to Thomas", TS 20 (1959) 505-60.

[27]Cf. “Öj ¨n m¾ ÐmologÍ tÕ martÚrion toà stauroà….. kaˆ Öj ¨n meqodeÚV t¦ lÒgia toà kur…ou» (Phil VII,1; italics mine).

[28] "The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document", pp. 66ff.

[29]See below n. 44 and 53.

[30]After examining the role John the Baptist plays in Q and Mark ("The Function of John the Baptist in Q and Mark,"), as well as the alleged anti-Baptist attitude of the 4th Gospel, ("Tο Πρόβλημα του Βαπτιστή Ιωάννη στο Δ΄ Ευαγγέλιο", ΔBM 4 [1976], pp. 99ff.), we started becoming more and more convinced that the Q-Document contained some version of Jesus' Baptism. However, the structure of the Marcan Version of Jesus' Baptism (see "The Function...," p. 412), as well as the 4th evangelist's opposition to the overestimation of John which was directed, in our view, not against the fictitious Baptist sect but against the Q-community located at Ephesus, makes us believe that the Q version of Jesus' Baptism differed widely from that of the canonical Synoptics; perhaps the role of John in it was somewhat overtoned at the expense of Jesus.

[31] The above construction of the document shows how indispensible the Q-Hypothesis is. For the order of the sections is quite intelligible; each section shows affinities with both the preceding and the following one. “Moreover, all sections end in the same formal way (namely with sayings which sum up the whole section) making the passing from one section to the other natural and smooth" ("The Nature and Extent of the Q-Document," pp.72f. and n. 128).

[32]Cf. 1 Cor 15.1; Gal 1.11; 1 Thess 1.5 etc. Also the use of the terms "εÇαγγέλιον" (in Mark and Matthew) and “εÇαγγελίζεσθαι” (in Luke).

[33]Cf. A. Harnack, The Sayings, p. 153.

[34]Die Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes (engl. transl. Jesus’ Proclamation of the Kingdom of God, Philadelphia 1971), the first (1892) edition of which contained only 67 pages.

[35]Vom Reimarus zu Wrede (engl. transl. with the brilliant title The Quest of the Historical Jesus) 1906.

[36]Cf. his consideration of Christian origins in his classical works: (a) Die Geschichte der synoptischen Tradition, Göttingen 1921 from a historico-critical point of view, and (b) Jesus, Berlin 1926 from a theological perspective, where he gave a privileged place to apocalyptic sayings and explained most of the wisdom material as later Church additions.

[37]Cf. his The Parables of the Kingdom, London ¹1935, ²1961.

[38]Cf. also the classical and balanced work of N.Perrin, Rediscovering the Teaching of Jesus, London 1967, which summarizes the mainstream scholarly research on the issue just before the reopenning of the Q question.

[39]E.Käsemann, “Die Anfänge christlicher Theologie,” ZTK 57 (1960) 162-85; and “Zur Thema der christlichen Apokalyptik,”ZTK 58 (1962) 257-84; both translated into English under the title “The Beginnings of Christian Theology,” and “On the Subject of Primitive Christian Apocalyptic,” New Testament Questions of Today, London 1969, pp.82- 107 and 108-137 respectively.

[40]The question was in force even from the early period of the Pauline mission (cf. 1 Cor 7. 29-31 etc.).

[41]R.E.Brown, An Introduction to New Testament Christology, New York 1994, pp. 205ff.

[42]B.L.Mack,The Lost Gospel. The Book of Q and Christian Origins, San Francisco 1993, pp.31f.

[43]Early in the 80s I was stating that “N.T. scholars are becoming...reluctant to pay much attention to minor literary questions. The majority of them are quite rightly turning their attention to the more important, and to some extent more fascinating, issues of theology and redaction of the oldest source of our Gospel accounts” (“The Original Order of Q,” p. 379).

[44]See above n. 18; cf also O.H.Steck (see above n. 15), whose conclusion concerning the Deuteronomistic redaction motif (on the basis of the Q=Lk 6.23, 11.49-51, 13. 34f sayings) in early Christianity has gained unanimous support among Q scholars.

[45]His major monograph, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections, Philadelphia 1987, is characterised by Robinson in the forward (p. xi) as the latest word on the Q scholarship; Kloppenborg was actually based on a previous important remark he made in an article on the methodology of the discussion of the composition and redaction of Q, that both form-critical and tradition-historical analysis have to be overcome in dealing with Q, since they are inadequate to assist in answering the crucial question posed above

[46]Under preparation by the International Q Project is a complete list of the Q bibliography and a critical edition of Q text, together with a classified and assessed presentation of all the scholarly contributions during the last two centuries, a periodically published series under the title Documenta Q, Leiden 1996ff.

[47]Tradition und Situation. Studien zur Jesusüberlieferung in der Logienquelle und den synoptisvhen Evangelien, Münster 1995.

[48]Münster Ñ1982. The quotation from p. 159 of his recent article “The Radaction of Q and the Son of Man: A Preliminary Sketch,” R.A.Piper (ed.), The Gospel Behind the Gospels. Current Studies on Q, Leiden 1995, 159-198.

[49]“LOGOI SOPHON: Zur Gattung der Spruchquelle Q,” Zeit und Geschichte. Dankesgabe an Rudolf Bultmann, Tübingen 1964, 77-96.

[50]This is clearly implied from his articles included in the jointly with J.M.Robinson published volume Trajectories Through Early Christianity, Philadelphia, 1971; cf. also his later Ancient Christian Gospels. Their History and Development, SCM London, TPI Philadelphia 1990, esp. pp. 128ff.

[51]See above n. 14.

[52]Cf A.D.Jacobson, Wisdom Christology in Q, Ph.D. at Claremont 1978 (also his The First Gospel. An Introduction to Q, Sonoma 1992); D.Zeller, Kommentar zur Logienquelle, Stuttgart 1984; Ph.E.Sellew, Early Collections of Jesus’ Words: The Development of Dominical Discourses, Ph.D. at Harvard 1986; L.Vaage, Q: The Ethos and Ethic of an Itinerant intelligence, Ph.D. at Claremont 1987; and basically M.Sato, Q und Prophetie. Studien zur Gattungs and Traditions-geschichte der Quelle Q, Ph.D under H.Luz, Tübingen 1988.

[53]See above n. 44.

[54]Kloppenborg characterised them “sound and responsible criteria”,(The Formation of Q, p. 84); and concluded his reconstruction chapter with the following statement: “rigorous examination of the Matt-Luke agreements and application of the criteria suggested by Vassiliadis lead to the conclusion that essentially Q was composed of sayings and chriae”, p. 88).

[55]According to Kloppenborg the Temptation story was developed at a later (3rd stage). It is not without significance the he started with those clusters of sayings where the motif of judgment appears quite prominent (pp. 102ff.), and then with the sapiential speeches in Q (pp. 171ff.).

[56]More on that below.

[57]See above n. 41.

[58]B.L.Mack, The Lost Gospel , p. 37.

[59]Beside Mack cf. also H.-D.Betz, “Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of an Hypothesis,” JR 74 (1994); F.G.Downing, “Quite like ‘Q’. The ‘Lives’ of Cynic Philosophers,” Biblica 69 (1988) 196-224; “Cynics and Christians,” NTS 30 (1984) 584-93. Also the collective workd Christ and the Cynics. Jesus and Other Radical Preachers in First-Century Tradition , Sheffield 1988; and Cynics and Vhristian Origins, Edinburgh 1992. L.Vaage, Q: The Ethos and Ethic of an Itinerant Intelligence, Ph.D Claremont 1987.

[60]Cf. P.Perkins, “Jesus before Christianity. Cynic and Sage?” ChrCen 110 (1993) 749-51.

[61]Cf.the product of the 74 members of that seminar: The Five Gospels, Macmillan 1993 (the 5th being the Gospel of Thomas).

[62]L.D.Crossan’s Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography, Harper San Francisco 1993. B.L.Mack’s The Lost Gospel may be counted among those, but not quite.

[63]A sage has to be differentiated from a cynic, hence the “sapiential” alternative with regard to Q - and by extension to Christian origins and the quest of the Historical Jesus - is not to be cofused with the “cynic” one.

[64]B.L.Mack, The Lost Gospel , p. 245.

[65]“The History-of-Religions Taxonomy of Q. The Cynic Hypothesis,” H.Preissler- H.Seiwer [eds.], Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschichte, Marburg 1995, pp.247-65.

[66]Ibid., p. 247.

[67]Ibid., p.265.

[68]B.Viviano, “The Historical Jesus in the Doubly Attested Sayings: An Experiment,” Revue Biblique 103 (1996) 367-410.

[69]“The Understanding of Eucharist in St. John’s Gospel,” L.Padovese (ed.), Atti del VI Simposio di Efeso su S.Giovanni Apostolo, Rome 1996, 39-52.

[70]Ibid., pp. 51f.

[71]Cf. my “Eucharist and Q”, Scholarly Annual of the Theological Department of the University of Thessaloniki, vol. 6 (1996) pp. 111-130. I had finished this article, which I then presented to the University of Lund, when I came across an extremely important treatment of the subject by Bruce Chilton under the title A Feast of Meanings. Eucharistic Theologies from Jesus through Johannine Circles, Leiden 1994. Chilton argues for a similar understanding of the Eucharist at the earlier stage of its development.

[72]C.P.M.Jones (revised by C.J.A.Hickling), “The Eucharist: I. The New Testament,” The Study of Liturgy. Revised Edition, SPCK London 1992, pp. 184-209.

[73] A.C.Couratin, "Liturgy," in The Pelican Guide to Modern Theology, vol. 2, Historical Theology, 1969, pp. 131-240.

[74]Cf. A.C.Couratin, "Liturgy," pp.154f.

[75]“Eucharist and Q”, pp. 126ff.

[76] See C.P.M.Jones (revised by C.J.A.Hickling), “The Eucharist: I. The New Testament,” p.204.

[77]Ibid.

[78]“Eucharist and Q”, pp. 127ff.

[79]See the Appendix below.

[80]P.Vassiliadis, “The Biblical Background of the Eucharistic Ecclesiology,” Lex Orandi. Studies of Liturgical Theology, Thessaloniki EKO 9 1994, 29-53, p. 49 (in Greek). In this article, contrary to the wider held scholarly view, I have argued for the “holistic” or “eschatological” consecration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist, not for the “linear” one based on the so-called “institutional sayings” of Jesus (p.50).

[81]7-9 times the term appears in Q¹. Mack tried to play down the evidence by paraphrasing it in some places and taking it to mean neutral, non-messianic/eschatological situations!

[82]On the eschatological character of the Eucharist see J.Zizioulas, Being as Communion; and D.Passakos, The Eucharist in the Pauline Mission. Sociological Approach, Thessaloniki, 1995.

[83] D.Passakos in his recent doctoral dissertation tried to analyse this “paradigm shift” at that crucial moment of early Christianity and claimed that “the Eucharist in Paul was understood not only as an icon of the eschata, but also as a missionary event with cosmic and social consequences. The Eucharist for him was not only the sacrament of the Church, but also the sacrament of the world. Within the Pauline communities the Eucharist had a double orientation (in contrast to the overall eschatological and otherworldly dimension of it in earlier tradition): towards the world as diastolic movement, and towards God as a systolic movement” (The Eucharist in the Pauline Mission, pp. 187-88). According to Passakos «the Eucharist for Paul is at the same time an experience of the eschata and a movement toward the eschata” (p. 189).

[84]Cf. my Cross and Salvation, 1983 (in Greek), an English summary of which can be found in a paper of mine delivered at the 1984 annual Leuven Colloquium Σταυρός˜: Centre of the Pauline Soteriology and Apostolic Ministry”, A.Vanhoye [ed.], L’Apôtre Paul. Personnalité, Style et Conception du Ministère, Leuven 1986, pp. 246-253).

[85]This is why the liturgical experience of the early Church is incomprehensible without its social dimension (see Acts 2:42ff., 1 Cor 11:1ff., Heb 13: 10-16; Justin, 1 Apology 67; Irenaeus, Adver. Her. 18:1, etc.).