What do you think?
Rate this book
Jesus and the Village Scribes: Galilean Conflicts and the Setting of Q
This volume challenges Gerd Theissen's dominant thesis of "wandering radicals" as the earliest spreaders of the Jesus tradition. Several conclusions (1) the textual evidence for the "wandering radicals" hypothesis is not tenable and it must be replaced with one that more closely comports with the (2) the immediate context of the Jesus movement, and of Q in particular, is the socio-economic crisis in Galilee under the Romans; and (3) the formation of Q is the product of Galilean village scribes in the Jesus movement reacting to the negative developments in Galilee that affected their social standing. Arnal moves decisively beyond earlier Q studies, which focused almost exclusively on literary history without dealing with the social realitites of the first century.
290 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2001
1 person is currently reading
8 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
May 29, 2024
WAS THE “Q” DOCUMENT WRITTEN BY SCRIBES REACTING AGAINST SOCIAL UPHEAVAL?
Author William J. Arnal wrote in the Introduction of this 2001 book, “The following study… was generated by the suspicion that the standard and conventional view of the social practice of the earliest Jesus movement was fundamentally flawed…The Jesus movement fostered by these individuals focused on an ascetic practice of renunciation, and, in consequence, the very peculiar rhetoric of some of the sayings ascribed to Jesus… This hypothesis… immediately presents the student of Christian origins with a series of problems. The motivation of this purported behavior remains vague, if it is described at all… The hypothesis is also undermined by textual deficiencies… This study thus began as an effort to consider the deficiencies of the itinerancy hypothesis as they pertained to a single documentary source containing material critical for the theory, namely, the Sayings Gospel of Q.” (Pg. 1) He continues, “This study… focuses on the question of such rhetoric as an entry point into the question of itinerancy and the larger issue of the social description of the persons responsible or Q and its traditions.” (Pg. 2)
He outlines, “t-he following conclusions are suggested… First, the itinerancy thesis … is culturally tendentious and has gained its enormous scholarly popularity more from its resonance with contemporary sociocultural trends then from its superior treatment of the evidence. Second, the actual textual evidence for the itinerancy hypothesis is very tenuous indeed, requiring for the most part a prior assumption of itinerancy in order for the texts in question actually in evince itinerancy… Third, the immediate context for the rise of the Jesus movement, Q included, is one of socioeconomic crisis…. Caused by a deliberate effort to restructure the northern Galilean imperial economy along lines more conducive to a monetized Roman imperial economy oriented to both trade and booty.” (Pg. 10)
He states, “Imperial Roman development of the noncoastal hinterland attempted to bring Galilee into the orbit of empire in order more effectively to siphon off its surplus product in the form of tribute, taxes, rents, interests and loans… the primary way in which this development was made possible was through the foundation of cities proximate to the hinterland to be exploited and accessible to potential trade outlets… These foundations had a decisive effect on Galilean economic production and organization… This effect in turn was socially disruptive … and… changed the character of rural social organization and hierarchy. It is against such a context that Q reacts.” (Pg. 101)
He points out, “We should thus expect a response of roughly this sort---a kind of bullheaded passive resistance---from the general population of the Valley in response to what appears to have been an event of major political and economic import, the founding of Tiberias. We should further expect that … the village scribes, a class of persons dramatically uprooted in their social and professional standing by the extended process set in motion by Antipas, and, moreover, a literate class, trained in the administration of village life.” (Pg. 155)
He argues, “Q evidently came to serve as a kind of foundational or authoritative document for the group that produced it, as attested not only by its preservation (within that group) but by its continual emendation to suit the group’s changing situations. Thus any description of Q’s tradents that fails to take this feature into account … is guilty of ignoring one of the most telling pieces of evidence: these people communicated and preserved their ideas in writing… What they wrote down was composed, not recorded, and composed according to the dictates of the style, rhetoric, and to some degree the content of the broader category of writings we may call Wisdom literature… their literacy was more than merely functional… We are thus dealing … with persons who are educated and who think of themselves as—and are---learned beyond the ancient norm but who, at the same time, do not occupy the pinnacle of the learning antiquity had to offer.” (Pg. 169-170)
He asserts, “The effort is a clearly political one, in which village leadership is encouraged to ignore the administrative apparatus of the new city and the values disseminated by it. Q’s emphasis on leadership and judgment… confirms this focus. The program was intended to be enacted administratively and officially, if it was to be enacted at all.” (Pg. 200)
He concludes, “In sum, the agenda of Qu… does not seem to evince itinerancy at all. The document’s rhetoric of uprootedness is a device used in the service of a much more specific social agenda that can be characterized, in brief, as essentially Luddite… it harks back to a past that was no more genuinely beatific than the authors’ present, but simultaneously it uses that past as a lever to offer serious class-based criticisms of the present order. Traditionalism is used against itself… Q radically flattens and simplifies the ideological pyramid, reducing it to only two levels” ‘us villagers’ and God… What is at issue here is not a rejection of native traditions … but an effort to receive those traditions, to apply a brand of nativistic revival against the encroachments of imperialism.” (Pg. 202-203)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the history of early Christianity, and the composition of the gospels.
Author William J. Arnal wrote in the Introduction of this 2001 book, “The following study… was generated by the suspicion that the standard and conventional view of the social practice of the earliest Jesus movement was fundamentally flawed…The Jesus movement fostered by these individuals focused on an ascetic practice of renunciation, and, in consequence, the very peculiar rhetoric of some of the sayings ascribed to Jesus… This hypothesis… immediately presents the student of Christian origins with a series of problems. The motivation of this purported behavior remains vague, if it is described at all… The hypothesis is also undermined by textual deficiencies… This study thus began as an effort to consider the deficiencies of the itinerancy hypothesis as they pertained to a single documentary source containing material critical for the theory, namely, the Sayings Gospel of Q.” (Pg. 1) He continues, “This study… focuses on the question of such rhetoric as an entry point into the question of itinerancy and the larger issue of the social description of the persons responsible or Q and its traditions.” (Pg. 2)
He outlines, “t-he following conclusions are suggested… First, the itinerancy thesis … is culturally tendentious and has gained its enormous scholarly popularity more from its resonance with contemporary sociocultural trends then from its superior treatment of the evidence. Second, the actual textual evidence for the itinerancy hypothesis is very tenuous indeed, requiring for the most part a prior assumption of itinerancy in order for the texts in question actually in evince itinerancy… Third, the immediate context for the rise of the Jesus movement, Q included, is one of socioeconomic crisis…. Caused by a deliberate effort to restructure the northern Galilean imperial economy along lines more conducive to a monetized Roman imperial economy oriented to both trade and booty.” (Pg. 10)
He states, “Imperial Roman development of the noncoastal hinterland attempted to bring Galilee into the orbit of empire in order more effectively to siphon off its surplus product in the form of tribute, taxes, rents, interests and loans… the primary way in which this development was made possible was through the foundation of cities proximate to the hinterland to be exploited and accessible to potential trade outlets… These foundations had a decisive effect on Galilean economic production and organization… This effect in turn was socially disruptive … and… changed the character of rural social organization and hierarchy. It is against such a context that Q reacts.” (Pg. 101)
He points out, “We should thus expect a response of roughly this sort---a kind of bullheaded passive resistance---from the general population of the Valley in response to what appears to have been an event of major political and economic import, the founding of Tiberias. We should further expect that … the village scribes, a class of persons dramatically uprooted in their social and professional standing by the extended process set in motion by Antipas, and, moreover, a literate class, trained in the administration of village life.” (Pg. 155)
He argues, “Q evidently came to serve as a kind of foundational or authoritative document for the group that produced it, as attested not only by its preservation (within that group) but by its continual emendation to suit the group’s changing situations. Thus any description of Q’s tradents that fails to take this feature into account … is guilty of ignoring one of the most telling pieces of evidence: these people communicated and preserved their ideas in writing… What they wrote down was composed, not recorded, and composed according to the dictates of the style, rhetoric, and to some degree the content of the broader category of writings we may call Wisdom literature… their literacy was more than merely functional… We are thus dealing … with persons who are educated and who think of themselves as—and are---learned beyond the ancient norm but who, at the same time, do not occupy the pinnacle of the learning antiquity had to offer.” (Pg. 169-170)
He asserts, “The effort is a clearly political one, in which village leadership is encouraged to ignore the administrative apparatus of the new city and the values disseminated by it. Q’s emphasis on leadership and judgment… confirms this focus. The program was intended to be enacted administratively and officially, if it was to be enacted at all.” (Pg. 200)
He concludes, “In sum, the agenda of Qu… does not seem to evince itinerancy at all. The document’s rhetoric of uprootedness is a device used in the service of a much more specific social agenda that can be characterized, in brief, as essentially Luddite… it harks back to a past that was no more genuinely beatific than the authors’ present, but simultaneously it uses that past as a lever to offer serious class-based criticisms of the present order. Traditionalism is used against itself… Q radically flattens and simplifies the ideological pyramid, reducing it to only two levels” ‘us villagers’ and God… What is at issue here is not a rejection of native traditions … but an effort to receive those traditions, to apply a brand of nativistic revival against the encroachments of imperialism.” (Pg. 202-203)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying the history of early Christianity, and the composition of the gospels.
Displaying 1 of 1 review