Ritröð Guðfræðistofnunar - 01.09.1998, Page 178

Jón Ma. Asgeirsson
Seeley, then, goes on to explain the meaning of Q 14:27 against criticism
that emphasizes the metaphoric connotation of “cross” over against its possi-
ble literal reference to death (death on a cross?) which, indeed, is not com-
plicated: to be a real follower of Jesus demands shouldering the oak Jesus
carries around to the end (to death?). Seeley considers two observations in
place here. On the one hand he claims that in view of the death of Jesus, the
Q people could have understood the metaphor of the cross to refer to the
“imitating” of his death (even though it may have had a different connotation
before the death incident). Interestingly, Seeley himself hesitates in this
context when he states that the metaphor, “could signify the imitation of that
death” (i.e., the death of Jesus on the cross). On the other hand, Seeley con-
tinues, the “focus on discipleship” implies that any of the followers would be
expected to become subject of “re-enacting” the crucifixion themselves
(while the idea of actual crucifixion should not be excluded at the same time
for some of the disciples).50 Seeley believes that a demand for actual
execution, would have destined the Q people to vanish and disappear. But it
is in the cruel reminder of such a death that Seeley suggests affinities with
“Cynic and Stoic ideas about a philosopher’s noble death” of his/her
disciples.51 A “noble death” within these circles of philosophy constitutes
through such suffering a “true philosopher.”52 This ideology, based on the
exemplum Socratis, is frequently encountered in the writings of Hellenistic
philosophers of the Cynic and Stoic schools, as Seeley has adduced evidence
for in a different context,53 but the number of these exempla are the best
evidence, according to Seeley, about how the pupil of philosophy could be
expected to prepare him-/her-self to this end: by exercising an imaginative
death based on the ideal example the pupil would have collected courage to
(eventually) face the hideous fate of death like Socrates.54
But has not Seeley projected the motif of violent death as known in the
50 Ibid., 132.
51 Ibid., 133.
52 Seeley explains, “This belief is based on the following sequence of logic: 1) a true philoso-
pher seeks what is right; 2) the worst threat one can face in this search is that of suffering
and death; 3) if one can continue the search even unto death, then one’s status as a true
philosopher is beyond challenge, ibid., 133.
53 Vide in particular his, The Noble Death: Graeco-Roman Martyrology and Paul’s Concept
ofSalvation, JSNTSup, D. Hill ed„ 18 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1992) 113-141; “Jesus’ Death in
Q,” NTS 38 (1992), praesertim 226-234; cf., “Blessings and Boundaries,” 133; for a brief
summary of the main parallel motifs Seeley argues are common between the New
Testament and Cynicism, vide his, Deconstructing the New Testament, Biblical Interpreta-
tion Series, R. A. Kulpepper and R. Rendtorf eds., 5 (Leiden: Brill, 1994) 162-179—also
here the martyrological concept is at the core!
54 "Blessings and Boundaries,” loc. cit.
176