John Kloppenborg is one of the foremost experts on the “Q” source, the material common to Matthew and Luke that does not come from Mark. In this essay he tries to get beyond the notion of Jesus as the great genius to the idea that the gospel writings emerged out of substantial networks that had multiple agents contributing to the work. Kloppenborg gives the example of a Q saying that suggested influence of ancient scribes:

As I have argued elsewhere, the measure-for-measure aphorism begins from the fact that seed grain was measured out (metreō) with a grain scoop (metron) and, in order to ensure parity in lending and borrowing, measured back by the same metron of the granary from which it was originally measured.35 Dozens of lease agreements prepared by scribes take the form, “I, NN, have measured out to you, NN, by the grain scoop [metron] of the third granary of Karnis, Karnis, x artabae of grain and you will measure it back to me, on (date) by the same metron of the third granary of Karanis” (or a similar form, mutatis mutandis, framed from the perspective of the borrower). The measure-for-measure aphorism in Q mobilizes this scribal knowledge, but applies it to an injunction to show mercy:

• Be merciful as your father is merciful. Do not judge and you will not be judged [[for with the judgment that you judge, you will be judged]] and with the measure that you measure our, it will be measured back to you. (Q 6:36–38)

What is noteworthy in this aphorism is that it takes the perspective of the lender, who in financial transactions knows that the system of lending and repayment guarantees equivalence through the use of the same metron. This system of borrowing served the interests of the lender, ensuring that repayment would always use the same terms as the initial loan. But the aphorism applies the same guarantee to those who are in a position to show mercy (i.e., by forgiving loans? by showing leniency?) and employs the same logic: those who show mercy will benefit by the very system of exchange that has guaranteed them profits and return on their investments. This is surely an appeal to self-interest, but one that brings economic principles into the domain of moral interaction. There are other examples of this crossover between scribal knowledge, scribal formulae, and the moral knowledge found in the Jesus tradition. My point here is that the early Jesus tradition was located in the nexus of “religious” or moral knowledge and administrative scribal knowledge, precisely because the agents of these forms of knowledge were, inter alia, scribes. These scribes were not merely pencil pushers, but persons who also valued and read the literature, literature that was in fact that basis of moral reasoning in the ancient world—Homer, Menander, Epictetus, and others. One might assume that the scribes of Roman Palestine also had in their houses copies of the Tanakh, Sirach, or other Judaean writings. This literature supplied the scribe with moral foundation that could be mobilized in expressions of the Jesus tradition...And the scribal networks that all acknowledge as instrumental in the codification and transmission of the Jesus tradition were likely more than simple tradents, but persons who contributed materially to the Jesus tradition by mobilizing their professional knowledge and their knowledge as “free readers” to contribute to that tradition.

It’s interesting, then, that just as haggadic midrash (e.g., Jesus as the new moses in Matthew) and mimesis (e.g., Jesus as the new Dionysus in John) imitation techniques bracket the historicity of narrative elements (since they very well may be invented), imagery from specialized areas (e.g., economics) need not have come from Jesus but could be the result of someone else in the network that was responsible for a piece of New Testament writing.

Bibliography

Kloppenborg, John. Networks in Crossley, James; Keith, Chris. The Next Quest for the Historical Jesus (pp. 369-390). Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.. Kindle Edition (2024).