The Compositional History of Q (1)

-1THE COMPOSITIONAL HISTORY OF Q Once scholars rightly concluded that both Matthew and Luke knew and used Mark, it remained to account for the large amount of non-Markan material — mostly sayings — common to the First and Third Gospels. Did Luke draw upon Matthew? 1 Did Matthew draw upon Luke?2 Or did the two evangelists use not only Mark but some other source as well? For reasons which need not be rehearsed here, the conventional wisdom now holds that Matthew and Luke employed a second written source, a document now lost.3 It is today known as Q (from the German Quelle, "source"). 4 1. See esp. M. D. Goulder, Luke — A New Paradigm (Sheffield: JSOT, 1989). For criticism see Christopher M. Tuckett, "The Existence of Q," in The Gospel Behind the Gospels, ed. Ronald A. Piper, NovTSup, vol. 75 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), pp. 1 9 47. Robert H. Gundry, "Matthean Foreign Bodies in Agreements of Luke with Matthew against Mark: Evidence That Luke Used Matthew," in The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck, ed. F. Van Sebroeck et al., BETL, vol. 100 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1992), pp. 1467-95, accepts both the existence of Q and Luke's use of Matthew. See further Frans Neirynck, "Luke 10:25-28: A Foreign Body in Luke?" in Crossing the Boundaries: Essays in Biblical Interpretation in Honour of Michael D. Goulder, ed. S. E. Porter, P. Joyce, and D. E. Orton (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1994), pp. 149-65; R. H. Gundry, "A Rejoinder on Matthean Foreign Bodies in Luke 10,25-28," ETL 71 (1995): 139-50; and Frans Neirynck, "The Minor Agreements and Lk 10,25-28," ETL 71 (1995): 151-60. 2. This is a rare judgment; but see R. V. Huggins, "Matthean Posteriority: A Preliminary Proposal," NovT 34 (1992): 1-22. 3. See further Charles E. Carlston and D. Norlin, "Once More — Statistics and Q," HTR 64 (1971): 59-78; Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "The Priority of Mark and the ' Q ' Source in Luke," in To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies (New York: Crossroad, 1981), pp. 3-40; David R. Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), pp. 159; Tuckett, "The Existence of Q." A revised version of this last appears in Tuckett's valuable new book, Q and the History of Early Christianity: Studies on Q (Edinburgh: T . & T . Clark, 1996), pp. 1-39. 4. Surveys of research include Ulrich Luz, "Die wiederentdeckte Logienquelle," EvT 33 (1973): 527-33; Ronald D. Worder, "Redaction Criticism of Q: A Survey," JBL 94 (1975): 532-46; Frans Neirynck, "Recent Developments in the Study of Q," in Logia: Les Paroles de Jesus — The Sayings of Jesus, ed. Joel Delobel, BETL, vol. 59 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1982), pp. 29-75; John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Christian Wisdom Collections, Studies in Antiquity and Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), pp. 8-101; Arland D. Jacobson, The First Gospel: An Introduction to Q (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1992), pp. 19-60; Kloppenborg, "Introduction," in The Shape of Q: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel, ed. John S. Kloppenborg (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), pp. 1-21; Tuckett, Q, pp. 41-82. 1 2 The Compositional History of Q Q has been more than just part of the solution to the synoptic problem. It has also been thought to be testimony to the circumstances and theological outlook of a particular author or community.5 B. H. Streeter already urged that Q was a "prophetic book like Jeremiah" with "apologetical value" which was written "at a time and place where the prestige of John [the Baptist] was very considerable." 6 Much more recently Burton L. Mack has discovered behind Q a group which undoes our usual assumptions about Christian origins: it did not recognize Jesus as the Messiah, or interpret his death as a saving event, or imagine that he had been raised from the dead. 7 Mack even goes so far as to affirm provocatively that "the people of Q were Jesus people, not Christians." 8 While this is assuredly not the scholarly consensus, many are now convinced that, in the words of John Kloppenborg, Q "represents a distinct theological vision and social configuration within early Christianity." 9 Both redaction criticism and the desire to see behind Q, to envisage what sort of group or community produced it, have fostered investigation into its compositional history. Siegfried Schulz, for example, sought to demonstrate that the first stage of Q presented the apocalyptic kerygma of a Transjordanian Palestinian Jewish-Christian community,10 that the second stage was a Hellenistic Jewish-Christian expansion, 11 and that there was a final Hellenistic redaction. 12 According to Athana5. Earlier researchers sometimes thought of Q as a collection of authentic sayings of Jesus without "discernable editorial bias"; so Adolf Harnack, The Sayings of Jesus (London: Williams and Norgate, 1908), p. 171. 6. The Four Gospels (London: Macmillan, 1936), pp. 291-92. His conclusion, on pp. 2 9 0 - 9 1 , that "the passages of Luke that we can identify as Q represent that document, not only approximately in its original order, but very nearly in its original extent," is a presupposition for the present investigation. Cf. Tuckett, Q, p. 94: "It seems that Luke quite often omits a Markan pericope precisely in order to retain a parallel version of the same pericope from Q. This suggests that Luke may have had a higher regard for Q than for Mark, and this in turn makes it less likely that Luke has made wholesale omissions from Q." 7. The Lost Gospel: The Book of Q and Christian Origins (San Francisco: Harper, 1993), p. 4. 8. Ibid., p. 5. Cf. Jacobson, First Gospel, p. 32: "To call Q a gospel, even if only provisionally, is not, however, to imply that it is Christian." 9. "The Sayings Gospel Q: Recent Opinion on the People behind the Document," Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 1 (1993): 9. For a survey of the Q community in recent discussion see Edward P. Meadors, Jesus the Messianic Herald of Salvation, WUNT, ser. 2, vol. 72 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1995), pp. 18-35. 10. Q 6:20-21, 27-30, 3 1 , 32-36, 37-38, 41-42; 11:1-4, 9-13, 39, 42-44, 4 6 - 4 8 , 52; 12:4-7, 8-9, 22-31, 33-34; 16:17, 18. Throughout this investigation Q passages will be introduced with their Lukan numbering; that is, Q 6:20-21 refers to the Q text in Lk 6:20-21. 11. This was characterized by a Son of God Christology (Q 4:1-13; 10:21-22), use of the LXX (4:1-13; 7:22; 10:13-15; 12:53; 13:18-19, 26-27, 28-29, 3 4 - 3 5 ; 17:26-27), wisdom interests (7:31-35; 10:12, 13-15; 11:31-32, 4 9 - 5 1 ; 13:28-29, 3 4 - 3 5 ; 17:2627), and awareness of the delay of the parousia (e.g., 12:39-40, 42-46; 13:18-19; 19:1219). Schulz conjectures a location in the Transjordanian Decapolis. 12. Q: Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zurich: Theologischer Verlag, 1972). For The Compositional History of Q 3 sius Polag portions of the Sermon on the Plain (6:27-38), sayings about John the Baptist (7:18-26), instructions on mission (10:4-11, 16), and the Beelzebul controversy (11:14-23) constituted an early collection. This was later expanded through at least two editorial stages.13 Yet another proposal has come from Migaku Sato. Although the burden of his work is to argue that Q should be classified as a prophetic book, he also outlines a compositional history. His contention is that the materials now in Q 3:7-7:28 (with the exception of the temptation narrative and a few lines here and there) constituted the original collection ("Redaction A"). Another hand then gathered most of Q 9-10 ("Redaction B"). At the final stage Q 3:7-7:28 and 9-10 were combined and additional material added ("Redaction C"). Sato envisages Q as a parchment notebook bound with leather thongs. Until its incorporation into Matthew and Luke it continued to grow, and Sato thinks that the two evangelists used different versions of the source (Qmt and Qlk).14 AN EARLY SAPIENTIAL RECENSION OF Q? Although students of Q seem generally to agree with Vincent Taylor that the document "changed, as it had to change, because it was responsive to the life it fed,"15 no one's reconstruction of Q's history has won the day. Of the various proposals, however, that of John Kloppenborg has proven to be the most significant, at least for students in North America. Several are convinced he is close to the truth. 16 criticism see the review by Paul Hoffmann in BZ 19 (1975): 104-15; also John S. Kloppenborg, "Tradition and Redaction in the Synoptic Sayings Source," CBQ 46 (1984): 36-45. 13. Die Cbristologie der Logienquelle, WMANT, vol. 45 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1977). For critical discussion see Migaku Sato, Q und Prophetie: Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q, WUNT, ser. 2, vol. 29 (Tubingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1988), pp. 3 0 - 3 3 . 14. Q und Prophetie, passim. See the critique of James M. Robinson, "Die Logienquelle: Weisheit oder Prophetie? Anfragen an Migaku Sato, Q und Prophetie," EvT 53 (1993): 367-89. Sato responds on pp. 389-404. For additional discussion of Sato see Jacobson, First Gospel, pp. 53-60. Jacobson himself offers a rather complex compositional theory; for discussion of it see Paul Hoffmann, "The Redaction of Q and the Son of Man," in R. A. Piper, Behind the Gospels, pp. 173-86. 15. Vincent Taylor, The Formation of the Gospel Tradition (London: Macmillan, 1968), p. 182. 16. Kloppenborg, Formation; "The Formation of Q and Antique Instructional Genres," JBL 105 (1986): '443-62. Mack's analysis of Q 1 and Q draws heavily upon Kloppenborg; he reports that by 1988 Kloppenborg's "identification of three layers of textual tradition of Q had already become an acceptable working hypothesis" for the Q Seminar of the Society of Biblical Literature {Lost Gospel, p. 44). Wendy Cotter, "Prestige, Protection, and Promise: A Proposal for the Apologetics of Q 2 ," in R. A. Piper, Behind the Gospels, pp. 117-38, speaks of "a general and growing support for the position of John Kloppenborg " Cotter includes herself. Cf. Ron Cameron, " 'What Have You Come Out to See?' Characterizations of John and Jesus in the Gospels," in The Apoc- 4 The Compositional History of Q Kloppenborg contends that Q contained two major types of sayings— "prophetic sayings (often framed as chreiai) which announce the impending judgment of this generation and which evince the Deuteronomistic understanding of history" 17 as well as "community-directed exhortations concerning self-definition and general comportment toward the world, discipleship, and mission, and the prospect of persecution and death." 18 The latter were the formative component of Q and can be classified as "instruction." To this were later added the prophetic sayings and additional interpolated sayings19 which turned Q into a collection of chreiai. These more than doubled the original document. Finally, the temptation story (Q 4:1-13) was added at the third and final stage. Kloppenborg's work, although full of useful review, helpful discussion, and new insights, has its share of difficulties. The first is that the distinction between sapiential and prophetic layers is worrisome. Is it perhaps an ahistorical construct? That the figure of Wisdom appears not in Kloppenborg's sapiential stratum but in his prophetic layer20 moves one to ask whether the dichotomy between wisdom and prophecy is not artificial. The same doubt arises from the circumstance that we have ancient Jewish literature — the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs and 4 Ezra being obvious examples — which freely mix apocalyptic and wisdom materials. 21 That Kloppenborg must argue that the sayings in his ryphal Jesus and Christian Origins, ed. Ron Cameron (Atlanta: Scholars Press; Semeia 49 [1990]), pp. 61-62; also P. J. Hartin, "The Wisdom and Apocalyptic Layers of the Sayings Gospel Q," Hervormde Teologiese Studies 50 (1994): 556-82, and Stephen J. Patterson, "Wisdom and Q and Thomas," in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie, ed. Leo Perdue, Bernard Brandon Scott, and William Johnston Wiseman (Louisville: Westminster, 1993), pp. 187-222. According to James M. Robinson, "The Q Trajectory: Between John and Matthew via Jesus," in The Future of Early Christianity: Essays in Honor of Helmut Koester, ed. B. A. Pearson et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), p. 173, the discovery of an early sapiential layer "is the most important discovery of the current phase of Q research." But he adds that the basic position was originally forwarded by Helmut Koester; see, e.g., Koester's book, Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Philadelphia: Trinity Press International, 1990), pp. 133-62, and below, n. 19. 17. Q 3:7-9, 16-17; 7:1-10, 18-28; (16:16?), 31-35; 11:14-26, 29-36, 39-52; 12:39-40, 42-46, 49, 51-53, 54-59; 17:23-37; 19:12-13,15-26; 22:28-30. 18. "Formation of Q," p. 454. See Q 6:20-49; 9:57-60 (61-62?); 10:2-16; 11:2-4, 9-13; 12:2-12, 22b-34; 13:24; 14:26-27, 34-35; 17:33. 19. Q 6:23c; 10:12, 13-15, 21-24; 12:8-9, 10; 13:25-30, 34-35; 14:16-24. Cf. already the surmise of Helmut Koester, "Apocryphal and Canonical Gospels," HTR 73 (1980): 113: "If the genre of the wisdom book was the catalyst for the composition of sayings of Jesus into a 'gospel,' and if the christological concept of Jesus as the teacher of wisdom and as the presence of heavenly Wisdom dominated its creation, the apocalyptic orientation of the Synoptic Sayings Source with its christology of the coming Son of man is due to a secondary redaction of an older wisdom book." Koester has more recently spoken favorably of Kloppenborg's reconstruction: "Q and Its Relatives," in Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings, ed. J. E. Goehring et al. (Sonoma, Calif.: Polebridge, 1990), pp. 4 9 - 6 3 . 20. See Q 7:35 and 11:49. 21. Also relevant are Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon, Matthew, and the Didache. The Compositional History of Q 5 sapiential sections that reflect a Deuteronomistic outlook (and so characterize the prophetic layer) are all interpolations 22 gives one further cause for concern, as does the fact that the beatitudes in the inaugural sermon (Q 6:20-49), a sermon which Kloppenborg labels "sapiential," have "little of the sapiential content or formulation." 23 Kloppenborg himself writes that "the first three [beatitudes] depend upon a logic of eschatological reversal, while the last uses the motif of eschatological reward." 24 Can one really then so neatly distinguish sapiential complexes from prophetic complexes? Or is this a distinction more at home in the world of modern scholars than in ancient Judaism? 25 Q 11:31-32 compares Jesus with both Solomon, a wise man, and Jonah, a prophet. The question is the more urgent given Sato's demonstration, in response to Kloppenborg, that if one examines the wisdom statements in Q, over half "are employed to manifest either the future-eschatological coming of the eschaton or the present-eschatological commencement For discussion see J. J. Collins, "The Court Tales of Daniel and the Development of Apocalyptic," JBL 95 (1975): 218-34; J. Z. Smith, "Wisdom and Apocalyptic," in Religious Syncretism in Antiquity, ed. B. A. Pearson (Missoula, Mont.: Scholars Press, 1975), pp. 131-70; Michael Stone, "Lists of Revealed Things in the Apocalyptic Literature," in Magnalia Dei: The Mighty Acts of God, ed. Frank Moore Cross, Werner E. Lemke, and Patrick D. Miller, Jr. (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1976), pp. 414-52; J. J. Collins, "Cosmos and Salvation: Jewish Wisdom and Apocalyptic in the Hellenistic Age," HR 17 (1977): 121-42; idem, "Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and Generic Compatibility," in Perdue et al., In Search of Wisdom, pp. 165-86; E. Elizabeth Johnson, The Function of Apocalyptic and Wisdom Traditions in Romans 9-11, SBLDS, vol. 109 (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 55-109; George W. E. Nickelsburg, "Wisdom and Apocalypticism in Early Judaism: Some Points for Discussion," in Society of Biblical Literature 1994 Seminar Papers, ed. Eugene H. Lovering, Jr. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), pp. 715-32. According to Koester, Gospels, p. 135, in Q "the apocalyptic announcement of judgment and of the coming of the Son of man . . . conflicts with the emphasis upon the presence of the kingdom in wisdom sayings and prophetic announcements." This inevitably subjective judgment is troubling. If the final editor of Q as well as Matthew and Luke simply incorporated this conflict whole, and if similar supposed conflict can be found in the writings of a single early Christian author — Paul's epistles for instance (contrast 1 Thess 4:13-5:11 with Rom 14:17) — then is the conflict anywhere but in the modern mind? 22. 6:23c; 10:12-15, 21-24; 12:8-9, 10; 13:25-30, 34-35; 14:16-24. 23. Joseph A. Fitzmyer, "A Palestinian Collection of Beatitudes," in Van Segbroeck, Four Gospels, vol. 1, p. 513. Cf. Koester, Gospels, pp. 156-57: the Q beatitudes "introduce Jesus as a prophet, not as a teacher of wisdom." 24. Formation, p. 173. Cf. Catchpole, Quest, p. 86. 25. See further Charles E. Carlston, "Wisdom and Eschatology in Q," in Delobel, Logia, pp. 101-19; Richard Horsley, "Questions about Redactional Strata and the Social Relations Reflected in Q," in Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers, ed. David J. Lull (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), pp. 186-203; idem, "Wisdom Justified by All Her Children: Examining Allegedly Disparate Traditions in Q," in Lovering, 1994 Seminar Papers, pp. 733-51. Horsley, in "The Q People: Renovation, Not Radicalism," Continuum 1, no. 3 (1991): 54, writes: "Sociologically it is clear that in a society in which any literature was written primarily by professional scribes and sages, it was the sapiential teachers such as maskilim who actually wrote apocalyptic literature. Would there be any reason to expect a separation between sapiential and prophetic/apocalyptic elements at a more popular level such as the transmission of Jesus-sayings?" 6 The Compositional History of Q of the new age." 26 Q 6:47-49 (the two builders), for instance, takes up imagery with "an affinity to the language used in the prophetic books of the Old Testament" 27 and reminds us of the prophetic oracles in which obedience brings salvation, disobedience doom. Sato also rightly observes that other wisdom statements, "which are not particularly eschatological in their wording, are so construed that they are highly compatible with the notion that the new era of salvation has already begun." 28 Thus Q 11:10 ("Everyone who asks receives, and everyone who seeks finds, and everyone who knocks, the door will be opened") is "hardly sanctioned by experience"; rather, this exaggerated optimism about prayer likely has its explanation in the conviction that eschatological salvation is already entering the present.29 Sato's point then is that "if we were to presuppose... that Q is basically sapiential, it would become extremely difficult to explain why and how such a strong prophetic vein could come into the source " 30 The argument 31 has force. Yet another difficulty for Kloppenborg is that there are literary patterns and editorial techniques that cut across his proposed layers. He assigns Q 6:20-23b to Q 1 ; 3:16-17, 7:18-23, and 13:34-35 to Q 2 . It is true that 3:16-17; 7:18-23; and 13:34 belong together. Whereas in 3:16-17 the Baptist prophesies a coming one, in 7:18-23 Jesus himself, by referring to the elements of his own ministry, indirectly claims (in answer to the Baptist's question) that he is this coming one. 32 He supports this christological claim by alluding to texts from Isaiah — 35:5 (the blind see); 35:6 (the lame walk); 35:5 (the deaf hear); 26:19 (the dead are raised); and 61:1 (the poor have good news preached to them). Finally, in 13:34-35 Jesus explicitly says that he is the eschatological figure who will come and be blessed in the name of the Lord. What needs to be noticed is that Q 7:18-23 is not the first time Q alludes to Isaiah 61. Q 6:20-23 alludes to this same text. "Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God" draws upon Isa 61:1; "Blessed 26. Migaku Sato, "Wisdom Statements in the Sphere of Prophecy," in R. A. Piper, Behind the Gospels, pp. 139-58 (quotation from p. 157). See also Carlston, "Wisdom and Eschatology in Q." 27. Here Sato refers to Ulrich Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthaus, vol. 1 (Zurich and Neukirchen-Vluyn: Benziger and Neukirchener, 1985), p. 414 n. 13. Luz cites Isa 28:17, 30:30; Ezek 13:11-14, 38:22; Hos 8:7; and Nah 1:3. To this one may add eschatological parallels from extracanonical texts, such as 1QH 3:14; Sib. Or. 3:689-92, 5:377-80; 2 Bar. 53:7-12. Q itself uses the imagery of Noah's flood to anticipate the eschatological tempest (Q 17:27). 28. "Wisdom Statements," p. 157. 29. Ibid., p. 150. Cf. Tuckett, Q, pp. 152-55. 30. Ibid., p. 157. 31. See further Tuckett, Q, pp. 139-63, 325-54. 32. Because there is no evidence that "the coming one" was a recognized title, the article in Q 7:19 ("the coming one") is probably anaphoric: it refers back to 3:16. The Compositional History of Q 7 are those who mourn, for you will be comforted" takes up the language of Isa 61:2; 33 and "Rejoice and be glad" recalls Isa 61:10. So the development in Q regarding the subject of Jesus as the coming one evolves in stages: • John prophesies one who is to come (3:16-17). • Jesus implicitly associates himself with Isaiah 61 (6:20-23). • Jesus, in answer to a question about the coming one, associates himself with Isaiah 61 and other texts (7:18-23). • Jesus calls himself "the one who comes" (13:35). Surely this christological sequence is due to deliberate design, and it is natural to assign the four texts to the same redactional stage.34 A final problem with Kloppenborg's view is that the assigning of the Deuteronomistic theology to the second stage seems artificial when the first stage is so full of the theme of rejection. The Deuteronomistic scheme, as outlined by Odil H. Steck, is a way of coming to terms with Israel's disobedience;35 but in Q this disobedience as well as the theme of the martyrdom of God's messengers is already manifest in 6:2223b (rejection on account of the Son of man); 9:58 (the Son of man's homelessness); 10:3 (lambs in the midst of wolves); 10:10-11 (rejection of missionaries); 10:16 (rejection of missionaries); 12:4-5 (killing the body); and 12:11-12 (appearance before synagogues) — all passages Kloppenborg assigns to the sapiential layer. Despite the advances brought to the study of Q by Kloppenborg's useful contributions, his reconstruction of an early wisdom document is not persuasive.36 A more promising direction for further investigation 33. Matthew's form is here original; see Catchpole, Quest, pp. 84-86; Tuckett, Q, pp. 223-26. 34. See further James M. Robinson, "The Sayings Gospel Q," in Van Segbroeck, Four Gospels, vol. 1, pp. 361-88. The argument would be all the stronger if, with some, one were to assign Lk 4:16-21 to Q; see, e.g., C. M. Tuckett, "Luke 4:16-30 and Q," in Delobel, Logia, pp. 343-54. But one hesitates to do this; see J. Delobel, "La redaction de Lc. IV.14-16a et le 'Bericht vom Anfang,'" in L'Evangile de Luc, ed. Frans Neirynck, 2d ed., BETL, vol. 32 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1989), pp. 113-33, 306-12, and David R. Catchpole, "The Anointed One in Nazareth," in From Jesus to John: Essays on Jesus and New Testament Christology in Honour of Marinus de Jonge, ed. Martinus C. de Boer, JSNTSS, vol. 84 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1993), pp. 2 3 0 - 5 1 . 35. Israel und das gewaltsame Geschick der Propheten, WMANT, vol. 23 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1967). 36. See further Tuckett, Q, pp. 69-75, and Dieter Zeller, "Eine Weisheitliche Grundschrift in der Logienquelle?" in Van Segbroeck, Four Gospels, vol. 1, pp. 3 8 9 - 4 0 1 . Zeller observes, among other things, that the instructions for missionaries do not have a proverbial character and are stamped by belief in the appearance of the end time. The recent attempts to dissociate Jesus himself from apocalyptic and to make him out to be a sort of Jewish Cynic cannot lend support to Kloppenborg's reconstruction because those attempts are unlikely to be correct; see Dale C. Allison, Jr., "A Plea for Thorough- 8 The Compositional History of Q comes from the work of Dieter Zeller. He has argued that "the kernel of many of the sayings groups was composed and transmitted by wandering and wonder-working missionaries."37 Later "the tradition of the itinerant preachers found a new Sitz im Leben in the communities that were founded by them. In this setting, it was used partly for paraenetic purposes." 38 I should like to take this suggestion seriously and make it the starting point for offering a new thesis regarding the compositional history of Q. I begin with a brief section-by-section analysis of Q. THE FIRST SECTION, Q 3:7-7:35 According to the common opinion, Q opened with five sections which, from T. W. Manson on, have often been reckoned to constitute a larger literary unit:39 1. The Proclamation of John the Baptist (Q 3:7-9, 16-17) 40 2. The Temptations of Jesus (Q 4:1-13) 41 3. The Sermon on the Plain (Q 6:20-49) 4. The Centurion's Servant (Q 7:1-10) 5. John and Jesus (Q 7:18-35) going Eschatology," JBL 113 (1994): 651-68; also James G. Williams, "Neither Here Nor There: Between Wisdom and Apocalyptic in Jesus' Kingdom Sayings," Forum 5, no. 2 (1989): 7-30. Moreover, the Gospel of Thomas does not supply evidence for a primitive wisdom gospel behind Q; see C. M. Tuckett, "Q and Thomas: Evidence of a Primitive 'Wisdom Gospel'? A Response to H. Koester," ETL 67 (1991): 346-60. 37. "Redaktionsprozesse und wechselnder 'Sitz im Leben' beim Q-Material," in Delobel, Logia, p. 407. Italics his. I quote from the English translation, "Redactional Processes and Changing Settings in the Q-Material," in The Shape ofQ: Signal Essays on the Sayings Gospel, ed. John S. Kloppenborg (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), p. 129. 38. Ibid. 39. The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM, 1949), p. 5. Q 3:7-7:35 has regularly been viewed as a literary unit, albeit made up of various materials; so, e.g., Sato, Q und Prophetie, pp. 33-36; Jacobson, First Gospel, p. 77; Elisabeth Sevenich-Bax, Israels KOJIfrontation mit den letzten Boten der Weisheit: Form, Funktion und Interdependenz der Weisheitselemente in der Logienquelle, Miinsteraner Theologische Abhandlungen, vol. 21 (Altenberge: Oros, 1993). 40. On the inclusion of v. 17 in Q see Tuckett, Q, p. 109, n. 5. Although I used to believe that Q probably had an account of Jesus' baptism, I now think my reasons inadequate. Robinson, "The Sayings Gospel Q," makes the case for inclusion. For the other side see F. Neirynck, "The Minor Agreements and Q," in R. A. Piper, Behind the Gospels, pp. 65-72. If Q had a title or general opening sentence it has been lost; for discussion see J. M. Robinson, "The Incipit of the Sayings Gospel Q," RHPR 75 (1995): 9 - 3 3 . 41. Kloppenborg, Formation, pp. 246-62, is not alone in thinking of the temptation narrative as a foreign body and late addition. But C. M. Tuckett, "The Temptation Narrative in Q," in Van Segbroeck, Four Gospels, vol. 1, pp. 479-507, disposes of most of the usual arguments for this position (although his nonchristological interpretation of "Son of God" seems dubious). See also Hugh M. Humphrey, "Temptation and Authority: Sapiential Narratives in Q," BTB 21 (1991): 43-50. The Compositional History of Q 9 One of the more obvious features of this section is that the opening and closing units concern John the Baptist and have much in common. In unit 1 John speaks about an eschatological figure who is coming (3:16, ep%6|ievoc,). In unit 5 Jesus, who in response to a question reveals that he is this coming one (6 epxouevoq, 7:19), speaks about John the Baptist. Both units, unlike those between them, have speeches which address the "crowds" as "you." Thus in 3:7 John the Baptist speaks to the crowds (o'xXoiq)42 that come out to be baptized by him whereas in 7:24 Jesus speaks to the crowds (o%A<oic,) that went "out into the wilderness." The two are addressing the very same group of people. One may also observe that if in 3:8, at the very beginning of the section, John speaks of God raising up children (xeKva) to Abraham, in 7:35, at the very end of the section, Jesus speaks of wisdom being justified by her children (teKveov).43 Clearly much in unit 5 was designed to recall and extend unit 1. The two should be read together. Although the fact is less evident, units 2 and 4 likewise belong together.44 Q 4:1-13 and 7:1-10 offer the only two extended narratives in Q 45 and its only real dialogues.46 Everywhere else we find only sayings, although occasionally these do have a narrative setting. So the two units correspond formally. Their contents are also similar in that, in both, Jesus is asked to make use of his supernatural powers. While in unit 2 Satan wants him to multiply bread, in unit 4 the centurion wants him to heal his son or servant. The difference is that whereas in the former the miracle would be illegitimate, in the latter it is not, and so Jesus consents. Juxtaposing the two texts invites reflection on what is and what is not an appropriate miracle. One is further encouraged to read units 2 and 4 in the light of one another because the devil and the centurion have more in common than a desire to have Jesus work miracles. In 4:1-13 the request for wonders comes from one who says he can give to Jesus "all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor" (4:5). Clearly he is a figure of great authority— as the ecjoucuav of Lk 4:6 makes explicit (although we do not 42. So Luke. Matthew's "Pharisees and Sadducees" (3:7) is surely redactional, as it is in 16:1, 6,11-12. 43. Matthew has "deeds," but this is usually reckoned secondary (cf. the inclusio created between Mt 11:2 and 11:19); see the commentaries and D. A. Carson, "Matthew ll:19b/Luke 7:35: A Test Case for the Bearing of Q Christology on the Synoptic Problem," in Jesus of Nazareth: Lord and Christ, ed. Joel B. Green and Max Turner (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994), pp. 128-46. 44. Cf. Sevenich-Bax, Konfrontation, pp. 265-67. 45. The only other narrative is the very brief 11:14. 46. Whether or not the International Q Project is correct to print Q 7:2 after 7 : 3 4, and whether or not the delegations in Luke but not Matthew belonged to Q, Q 7:1-10 must have included at least (1) an original petition, (2) initial response of Jesus, (3) centurion's statement of unworthiness, and (4) final response of Jesus. 10 The Compositional History of Q know whether the word stood in Q). 47 The situation is similar in 7:1-10. In asking Jesus to perform a miracle the centurion lays claim to his own authority, albeit in words that are difficult to understand: "I also am a man set under authority (eZpvoiav), with soldiers under me; and I say to one, 'Go,' and he goes, and to another, 'Come,' and he comes " Once again, then, unit 2 can be related to unit 4. Turning from units 1-2 and 4 - 5 to unit 3, there is no consensus regarding the outline of Q's Sermon on the Plain. But it does appear that the beginning and end correspond. 48 The sermon opens with blessings: "Blessed are you poor," and so forth (6:20-23). It ends with a warning, with the parable about the person who hears and does not act and so is likened to a house which the storm destroys (6:47-49). One is led, then, to the possibility that Q's first five units are arranged in a chiasmus in which each correlation is a pair of opposites: 1. John speaks to the crowds about the coming one. 2. A figure of authority asks for a miracle that Jesus refuses. 3. Blessings 3. Main body of sermon 3. Warnings 4. A figure in authority asks for a miracle that Jesus grants. 5. The coming one speaks to the crowds about John. It is always wise to hesitate about such literary patterns, and we can have no certainty that a contributor to Q consciously arranged his material in this fashion. But whatever one makes of the chiastic proposal, it remains indisputable that Q 3-7 is thematically united and contains intratextual references and allusions. Unit 5 does plainly hark back to unit 1. Further, if in unit 1 John illustrates his demand by referring to trees that bear good fruit (3:9: 5ev8pov... TtoioSv Koprcdv KaA-6v), Jesus does the same in unit 3 (6:43-45: 8ev8pov... TIOIOW Kaprcdv KCCA,6V). And if in unit 3 Jesus says, "Blessed are the poor" (6:20: 7nxo%oi), in unit 5 he says, "and the poor (ni(d%oi) have good news preached to them" (7:22). Before proceeding to the second section of Q, two additional observations need to be recorded. First, units 1-5 are further linked by the way in which the theme of the coming one (a figure referred to in 3:16 and 7:19) is developed with reference to Isaiah 61 (which is alluded to 47. Matthew does not have it. For inclusion in Q: Robert H. Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982), p. 58. Against inclusion: Schulz, Q, pp. 180-81. 48. Cf. Sevenich-Bax, Konfrontation, pp. 373-74. 11 The Compositional History of Q in 6:20-22 and quoted in 7:22). For this the reader is referred to the discussion on pp. 6-7 above. Second, units 1-5 show a great interest in Jesus' miracles. In 4:1-13 the devil asks Jesus to turn bread into stones and throw himself down from a great height. In 7:1-10 the centurion asks Jesus to heal his son or servant. And in 7:18-23 Jesus, in answer to John the Baptist, composes a list of the miracles he has performed. THE SECOND SECTION, Q 9:57-11:13 Manson gave this section the title, "Jesus and his Disciples," 49 which seems accurate enough. It, like the opening section, has five large units: 6. Call Stories (Q 9:57-62) 50 7. Instructions for Missionaries (Q 10:1—16)51 8. Teaching about Eschatological Revelation (Q 10:21-24) 9. The Lord's Prayer (Q 11:2-4) 10. On Seeking and Finding (Q 11:9-13) There is in all this a striking absence of the features that characterize Q's first five units. Here nothing takes us back to Isaiah 61. There is no reference to Jesus as the coming one. Nothing is said about Jesus' miracles or John the Baptist. And the crowds have disappeared. Q 9:57-11:13 also distinguishes itself from 3:7-7:35 in that it contains materials that were initially addressed to missionaries, not believers in general. The detailed directions in 10:1-16, for example, must have first been composed as guidance for a select group. 52 The demands to carry no purse, to go without shoes, and to salute no one were not originally addressed to a community at large. Rather were they specialized 49. Sayings, p. 5. 50. Lk 9:61-62 has no Matthean parallel, but it more likely than not belonged to Q; so Martin Hengel, The Charismatic Leader and His Followers (New York: Crossroad, 1981), p. 4 n. 5; John Dominic Crossan, In Fragments: The Aphorisms of Jesus (San Francisco: Harper &c Row, 1983), pp. 237-44; Kloppenborg, Formation, p. 190 n. 80; Karl Loning, "Die Fuchse, die Vogel und der Menschensohn (Mt 8,19f par Lk 9,57f)," in Vom Urchristentum zu Jesus: Fur Joachim Gnilka, ed. Hubert Frankemolle and Karl Kertelge (Freiburg: Herder, 1989), pp. 83-84. Contrast Sato, Q und Prophetie, p. 55. 51. The woes in 10:13—15 are with good reason often regarded as secondary. See below, p. 35. 52. My own judgment is that Q's missionary discourse may have consisted of Lk 10:2 + Mt 10:5-6 + Lk 10:3-12 + Mt 10:23 + Lk 10:16 + Lk 10:13-15. See W. D. Davies and Dale C. Allison, Jr., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to St. Matthew, vol. 2, ICC (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1991), pp. 163-64. But this conviction does not affect my main argument. 12 The Compositional History of Q instruction for itinerant preachers.53 Those preachers depended upon and identified themselves with communities made up of nonitinerants,54 but these last are nowhere clearly addressed in 10:1-16.55 The missionary discourse presupposes a distinction between two sorts of people and addresses only one.56 53. Cf. Rudolf Laufen, Die Doppeluberlieferungen der Logienquelle und des Markusevangeliums, BBB, vol. 54 (Konigstein: Peter Hanstein, 1980), pp. 278-80; Kloppenborg, Formation, p. 239; Sato, Q und Prophetic pp. 379-80, 389. 54. See Gerd Theissen, Sociology of Early Palestinian Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1978), pp. 17-23. But Ernst Kasemann, New Testament Questions of Today (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1969), p. 119, could be read to mean that all members of what he calls "the primitive Jewish Christian community" were in some sense missionaries. I rather envisage itinerant missionaries involved with settled communities which gave them support. Here Paul is typical. Cf. Dieter Luhrmann, "The Gospel of Mark and the Sayings Collection Q," JBL 108 (1989): 7 0 - 7 1 . On the other hand, given the presumed Palestinian setting, "Itinerancy is more likely to have looked like brief excursions than like the extended journeys of Paul"; so John S. Kloppenborg, "Literary Convention, Self-Evidence, and the Social History of the Q People," in Early Christianity, Q, and Jesus, ed. John S. Kloppenborg and Leif E. Vaage (Atlanta: Scholars Press; Semeia 55 [1992]), p. 89. See further on the whole question, Richard A. Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement, 2d ed. (New York: Continuum, 1994); also Thomas Schmeller, Brechungen: Urchristliche Wander charismatiker im Prisma soziologisch orientierter Exegese, SBS, vol. 136 (Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1989). These two works contain much useful criticism of Theissen's influential studies. 55. In 2 John 10-11 and Didache 11-13 by contrast we find instruction to nonitinerants on how to treat itinerants. Q 10:2-16 is different. Contrast the way in which the missionary discourse is reworked in Matthew 10. Although 10:5-25 is concrete advice that would not have been of much relevance to many of Matthew's readers, 10:32-42 is different: its demands could be heeded equally by all. A concern to broaden the scope of the discourse appears also in the concluding 10:42, which is a word not to missionaries but to those who can share in their mission. Kloppenborg, " 'Easter Faith' and the Sayings Gospel Q," in The Apocryphal Jesus and Christian Origins, ed. Ron Cameron (Atlanta: Scholars Press; Semeia 49 [1990]), pp. 7 3 76, contends that "Q's mission speech shows signs of redactional reformulation from an ecclesial perspective" and finds this perspective in Q 10:2 and 10:7b. One may doubt this. Q 10:7 seems to be an integral part of the discourse (cf. David R. Catchpole, "The Mission Charge in Q," in Kloppenborg and Vaage, Early Christianity, Q, and Jesus, pp. 1 6 9 70); the ecclesiastical orientation of Q 10:2 is far from obvious. But even if Q 10:2 and 10:7 were thought to have been added at a secondary stage of Q (so Kloppenborg; see A. D. Jacobson, "The Literary Unity of Q: Lc 10,2-16 and Parallels as a Test Case," in Delobel, Logia, pp. 419-23) that would entail that the original composition was addressed to itinerants. 56. Leif E. Vaage, "Q and Cynicism: On Comparison and Social Identity," in R. A. Piper, Behind the Gospels, pp. 198-229, urges that the "formative stratum of Q [including the missionary discourse] was for all intents and purposes a 'Cynic Document.' " Such a conclusion might vitiate the distinction I here draw between an itinerant and settled populace. But Vaage is unconvincing. A specifically Jewish background is more plausible. Among other things, the instructions to do without silver (Mt 10:9; Lk 9:3), sandals (Mt 10:10; Lk 10:4), and staff (Mt 10:10; Lk 9:3) do not require a Cynic background. Judaism was well acquainted with provocative prophetic deeds and dress (recall only Ezekiel and John the Baptist) as well as with asceticism and religious poverty (cf. the Qumran Essenes and Josephus, Vita 5:11, on Bannus). In the present instance we have the congruence with Jesus' teaching about poverty and self-defense. (The staff, which was also associated with rabbinic teachers — cf. m. Ber. 9:5, which also mentions sandal and wallet — could be used as a defensive weapon.) Moreover, if we take Josephus, Bell. 2:125 ("they carry The Compositional History of Q 13 This differentiation between missionary and nonmissionary presumably goes back to Jesus himself. Jesus did not call all to be his disciples, that is, to "follow" him.57 Discipleship in that sense was quite restricted. He summoned only certain individuals to leave family and work that they might be able to enter fully into service with him. The canonical gospels accurately preserve the memory of a distinction between what they call apostles — those selected to share in Jesus' task of proclaiming the kingdom of God — and others. Jesus demanded of people in general that they repent and accept his proclamation, not that they leave all and follow him or leave the dead to bury their own dead. In Hengel's words, "Only once the 'proclaimed had become the 'proclaimed' were 'following after' and 'faith' identified, the 'disciples' becoming the believing community." 58 Returning now to Q, it seems that 10:1-16 is hardly the only section that was initially drawn up with missionaries or disciples in the narrow sense in view. Q 9:57-62, which contains two or three stories of Jesus' radical call to discipleship that together introduce the missionary discourse, was also probably aimed at such persons. For it makes concrete the homeless way of life of those who are called to follow him and proclaim his cause.59 In the words of Christopher Tuckett, the homeless Son of man in 9:58 "acts as a paradigm for the Christian disciple whose task is about to be outlined in the missionary charge which follows." 60 If units 6-7 can be associated because of their common origin as instruction for itinerants, units 8-10 belong together because they are thematically united. In unit 8 (10:21-24) Jesus prays. In unit 9 (Q 11:2nothing whatever with them on their journeys except arms as a protection against brigands") literally, Jesus' disciples would have very much resembled the Essenes. Finally, it remains possible, despite Vaage's demurral, that Jesus' prohibition of staff and traveler's bag were intended to differentiate followers of Jesus from Cynic philosophers. For further critical discussion of the Cynic hypothesis with regard to Jesus, earliest Christianity, and Q, see Paul Rhodes Eddy, "Jesus as Diogenes? Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis," JBL 115 (1996): 449-69; Richard Horsley, "Jesus, Itinerant Cynic or Israelite Prophet?" in linages of Jesus Today, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Walter P. Weaver (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994), pp. 68-97; idem, Sociology, pp. 108-11; James M. Robinson, "The History-of-Religions Taxonomy of Q: The Cynic Hypothesis," in Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschichte, ed. Holger Preissler and Hubert Seiwert (Marburg: Diagonal, 1994), pp. 247-65 (this is primarily a critique of Mack); C. M. Tuckett, "A Cynic Q?" Biblica 70 (1989): 349-76; idem, Q, pp. 368-92; Ben Witherington III, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), pp. 117-45. 57. For this and what follows see Hengel, Charismatic Leader, pp. 61-80; also Rudolf Schnackenburg, The Moral Teaching of the New Testament (New. York: Seabury, 1979), pp. 42-53. 58. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, p. 62. 59. Kloppenborg, Formation, pp. 200-201, affirms that 9:57-62 "broadens the original mission instruction by setting them [sic] within the more comprehensive framework of a speech on discipleship." But it seems much more likely that the stories in 9:57-62 were originally paradigmatic only for itinerant missionaries. 60. Tuckett, Q, p. 288. 14 The Compositional History of Q 4) he gives the Lord's Prayer. And in unit 10 (11:9-13) he tells his disciples that they will be given what they ask for. Units 8-10 are linked not only by the theme of prayer but also by their focus upon the heavenly Father. In unit 8 Jesus' prayer opens with "Father," and he goes on to speak of "Father" and "Son." In unit 9 Jesus tells his disciples to address God as "Father." And in unit 10 they are told that "the heavenly Father" will give to them good things (so Matthew) or the Holy Spirit (so Luke). Q 10:21-24, 11:2-4, and 11:9-13 do not just concern similar subjects: they are also related in more formal ways. For example, if in 10:21-24 the Father is "the Lord of heaven (oupocvou) and earth," in 11:13 he is "your heavenly Father" (ecj oupccvoi)). And if in 11:3 God gives (86c) "bread (aptov) for the morrow," in 11:11 no earthly father will give (e7ti8cbo~ei) a stone when asked for "bread" (ccpxov).61 If units 6-7 (9:57-62 and 10:1-16) are united by their original function as direction for itinerant missionaries, and if units 8-10 (10:21-24, 11:2-4, and 11:9-13) are united by theme, the latter in their entirety bind themselves to the former. Units 8-10 open with "at that hour/ time," 62 which, if it has any function at all, must refer to the giving of instruction to missionaries, to the time when Jesus spoke of the great harvest. Further, in unit 8 Jesus speaks of "these things," the things hidden from the wise (10:21). One cannot be sure exactly what the antecedent is, but it almost certainly lies in the missionary discourse. Finally, units 8-10 have to do with prayer, and the missionary discourse itself is introduced by a call to prayer: "Pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into his harvest" (10:2). So Kloppenborg is right that "despite the apparently new beginning signaled by the prayer formula, 10:21-22 belongs with the preceding material." 63 Why were units 8-10 linked to units 6-7? The former addresses those who have been called to the hard way of life outlined in the latter and proffers encouragement. Q's instructions for the itinerant are almost lifethreatening. Missionaries can take no purse, no bag, no sandals (10:4); and some people will not welcome them (10:6, 10-12). They are like lambs in the midst of wolves (10:3). They are at the mercy of others; they will eat and have shelter only if they find sympathizers (10:7). Against this background, unit 8 appears to be reassuring. Jesus thanks God that "these things" have been revealed to "infants" (that is, to the missionaries and those who have embraced their message) but hidden 61. In Mt 7:9-10 the contrasts are between bread and stone and fish and serpent; in Lk 11:11-12 they are between fish and serpent and egg and scorpion. While we cannot be certain, Luke's version may be under the influence of Lk 10:19. Cf. Catchpole, Quest, pp. 211-12. 62. Mt 11:25: ev eiceivcp TCO Koupcp; Lk 10:21: ev ouxfj ir\ copoc. 63. formation, p. 197. The Compositional History of Q 15 from "the wise and understanding" (who are among those who have not embraced the mission).64 All this underlines the unsurpassed privilege the missionaries have — their eyes and ears are witnesses to unprecedented eschatological realities (10:24). Implicit is the overriding value of what they do: their work is the most important thing in the world. Unit 9 next hands down the Lord's Prayer. The missionaries are not only to proclaim the coming of the kingdom (10:9) but also to pray for its coming (11:2). The burden of their itinerant existence, which puts them at the mercy of the hospitality of others — "eat what is set before you" (10:8) 65 — is lightened by the faith that just as God long ago, in the days of the Exodus, supplied bread for his people for the coming day, so God now will give to eschatological missionaries the bread they need for the coming day. After the Lord's Prayer comes unit 10, which enjoins asking, seeking, and knocking. The teaching enlarges on the theme of prayer, or rather encourages those who pray the Lord's Prayer to have faith that God will hear and answer them. Those who ask and seek and knock will be given what they need. If the three sections are at one in offering reassurance for a difficult way of life, they also agree in that each concerns the activity of God the Father on behalf of his children. In unit 8 the Father reveals himself to "infants," delivers "all things" to "the Son," and brings eschatological realities into the present ("many prophets and kings desired to see the things which you see and saw them not"). In unit 9 the Father in heaven brings his kingdom, gives bread, forgives sins, and delivers his own from trial. In unit 10 God is compared with earthly fathers and said to be better, so that he will certainly give to those who ask of him. To sum up, then, it appears that the original Sitz im Leben of the materials now collected in 9:57-11:13 was the missionary work of itinerants. Q 9:57-62 offered them examples of what Jesus' demanding call to follow him could mean. Q 10:1-16 then contained directions on how to carry on their mission. And 10:21-11:13 followed with encouraging words which focused on prayer, which is to be addressed to the generous Father in heaven who provides for his children. 64. Jacobson, First Gospel, p. 149, urges that in Q 10:21-22 "most of Israel is said to have no knowledge of God" and we "have the view that God in fact intended this failure." One can concur on neither point. The first reads far too much into the text, and as for the second, Chrysostom, Horn, on Mt. 38:1, was right: "And while his being revealed to these [the babes] was fit matter of joy, his concealment from those [the wise and understanding] was not for joy but tears. Thus at any rate he acts, where he weeps for the city. Not therefore because of this does he rejoice, but because what wise men knew not, was known to these; as when Paul says, 'I thank God, that you were servants of sin, but you obeyed from the heart the form of doctrine which was delivered to you.' " 65. This line, without parallel in Matthew, is not Lukan redaction, nor does it reflect the Gentile mission. See below, p. 109. 16 The Compositional History of Q THE THIRD SECTION, Q 11:14-52 Kloppenborg rightly reckons Q 11:14-26, 29-52 as a literary unit and gives it the title, "controversies with Israel." 66 So similarly Polag, who categorizes the section as an Auseinandersetzung.67 There are six units: 11. Beelzebul(Q 11:14-23) 12. Unclean Spirit (Q 11:24-26) 13. Sign of Jonah (Q 11:29-32) 14. Light (Q 11:33-36) 15. Woes against Pharisees (Q l l : 3 9 - 4 4 ) 6 8 16. Woes against Lawyers (Q 11:45-51 + 13:34-35 + 11:52) 69 These units are filled with polemic. People accuse Jesus of casting out demons by Beelzebul (11:15). Jesus refutes their position in unit 11 and 66. Formation, p. 101. 67. Athanasius Polag, Fragmenta Q: Textheft zur Logienquelle (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1979), p. 24. Cf. Witherington, Sage, p. 220. Manson, Sayings, p. 5, put the rubric "Jesus and his opponents" over Q 11:14-12:34. But this is accurate only for the first part; 12:2ff. introduces new concerns. 68. The parallels between Mt 23:13-36 and Lk 11:37-54 may be set forth thus: Matthew 23 4, burdens 6-7a, seats and greetings 13, key (woe 1) 15, proselytes (woe 2) 16-22, oaths (woe 3) 23-24, tithes (woe 4) 25-26, cup (woe 5) 27-28, tombs (woe 6) 2 9 - 3 3 , murder (woe 7) 34-36, lament over Jerusalem Luke 11 3 9 - 4 1 , cup 42, tithes (woe 1) 43, seats and greetings (woe 2) 44, tombs (woe 3) 46, burdens (woe 4) 47-48, murder (woe 5) 4 9 - 5 1 , lament over Jerusalem 52, key (woe 6) Two of Matthew's woes (2, 3) do not appear in Luke, and Luke's parallel to Mt 23:256 (woe 5) is not a woe. Moreover, two of Luke's woes (2, 4) have parallels of content but not form in Matthew; that is, they are woes in the former but not the latter. Another major difference is that whereas all but the third of Matthew's seven woes are addressed to "scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites," in Luke there are two triads: woes 1-3 are directed to the Pharisees, woes 4 - 6 to the lawyers. The International Q Project has reconstructed this seven-woe sequence: Q 11:42, 39ab + 40 + 41 (in woe form, as in Matthew but not Luke), 43, 44, 46, 47 + 48, 52; see J. M. Robinson, "The International Q Project: Work Sessions 12-14 July, 22 November 1991," JBL 111 (1992): 504-5 . But Luke is probably even closer to Q than this reconstruction indicates. Luke's redactional introduction, 11:37-38, which has a Pharisee complain about Jesus not washing before eating, shows us that 11:39-41 introduced Q's series of woes (cf. Leif E. Vaage, Galilean Upstarts: Jesus' First Followers according to Q [Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1994], pp. 133-34). Further, Luke's triadic arrangement reminds one of other triads in Q (see below, p. 18). Matthew's series is best explained as a conflation of M and Q material (cf. the Sermon on the Mount); so already Streeter, Four Gospels, pp. 254-55. 69. On the original position of 13:34-35 see below, pp. 201-2. The Compositional History of Q 17 in unit 12 turns the argument around to claim that the exorcisms of his rivals are ineffectual.70 In unit 13 he rebukes "this generation," which will stand condemned at the last judgment. In unit 14 Jesus appears to explain why his opponents do not accept the light of his ministry: their evil eye causes them to dwell in the realm of darkness. 71 In units 15 and 16 Jesus utters woes against the Pharisees and lawyers. The connection between all this polemic and Q's second section, 9: 57-11:13, is less than obvious. One might argue that 11:14-52 explores the theme of the rejection of the missionaries' proclamation (cf. Q 10:13-15). But the transition from Q 11:13 to 11:14 remains rough, and it is telling that topical groupings of Q consistently draw a line between Q 11:13 and 11:14. 72 It is also noteworthy that nothing in units 11-16 need ever have been directed to itinerant missionaries in particular. The polemic of 11:14-52 reminds one not of 9:57-11:13 but of Q's opening section, 3:7-7:35. In 3:7-9, 16-17 John the Baptist rails against those who come out to him, and in 7:18-35 Jesus mourns "this generation," which has rejected both the Baptist and himself. Moreover, the interest in Jesus' miracles, so prominent in 3:7-7:35, but not mentioned in 9:57-11:13, also resurfaces here. Q's third section opens with a controversy about Jesus' exorcisms, and the request for a miraculous sign, which Jesus refuses to grant, takes one back to 4:1-13, where the devil makes an improper request for a miracle. There are other interesting links between 3:7-7:35 and 11:14-52. Taken together these two sections contain • all of Q's references to Jesus' miracles (4:1-13; 7:1-10, 22; 11:1422, 29-30) • all of Q's sayings on "this generation" (7:31; 11:29, 30, 31, 32, 50, 51) 73 70. See below, pp. 120-32. 71. See below, pp. 165-67. 72. See the survey of the schemes of T. W. Manson, John Dominic Crossan, Athanasius Polag, and Wolfgang Schenk in Kloppenborg, Formation, pp. 90-92. R. Uro, Sheep among the Wolves: A Study of the Missionary Instructions of Q (Helsinki: Suomalainen tiedeakatemia, 1987), p. 95, writes that Q ll:14ff. introduces "a totally new subject." 73. D. Liihrmann, Die Redaktion der Logienquelle, WMANT, vol. 33 (NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener, 1969), argued that Q's sayings about "this generation" reflect a single redactional level. (The "this generation" saying in Lk 17:25, although it appears in the middle of Q material, is usually thought to be Lukan; cf. Rudolf Schnackenburg, "Der eschatologische Abschnitt Lk 17,20-37," in Melanges Bibliques en hommage au R. P. Beda Rigaux, ed. A. Descamps and R. P. Andre de Halleux [Gembloux: Duculot, 1970], pp. 222-23.) For the argument that in Q r\ yevect a m n means "this type" and refers primarily to the Pharisees see R. A. Horsley, "Q and Jesus: Assumptions, Approaches, and Analyses," in Kloppenborg and Vaage, Early Christianity, Q, and Jesus, pp. 186-87, 191. For criticism see John S. Kloppenborg, "Recent Opinion," in Conflict and Invention: Lit- 18 The Compositional History of Q • all of Q's statements about sopbia (7:35; 11:31, 49) • all of Q's material on demonology (4:1-13; 11:14-23, 24-26) • all of Q's uses of Ticrap to mean "ancestor" (3:8; 6:23; 11:47, 48) • eight of nine of Q's uses of Ttovtpoc, (6:22, 35, 45 [three times]; 11:13,26,29,34). Further, if one were to hold that, in Q, 16:16 appeared between 7:28 and 31 (an uncertain matter), then these sections would also contain all of Q's traditions about the Baptist.74 Another striking circumstance is that of the ten places in Q where a phrase or formula is repeated three times in near succession, nine of them belong to the first and third sections:75 4:3 m i eTrcev m/cco 6 8id|k>A,oc/ ei 4:5-6 6 8idpoA,oc, KCCI eTrcev ccwcp eav 4:9 6 Si&PoAoc, . . . KCCI eTrcev awcoei 4:4 4:8 4:12 KCCI &7ieKpi9r| 6 Tnaoftc/ yeypcc7iTcu KCCI &7ioKpi9ei<; 6 'Inoo'uc, einev cruxS- yeypccTttcci yeypa7ixai Kai et7tev OUTCD 6 'Inoofic/ 6:20 uxxKdpioi o i . . . OTI 6:21a uccKdcpioi o i . . . o t i 6:21b (laKdpioi o i . . . dxi76 6:32 6:33 6:34 Ttoia •uuTv %dpiq ecmv 7toia i)|itv %dpic, so%iv Ttoia vuTv xdpic, eativ 7 7 erary, Rhetorical, and Social Studies on the Sayings Gospel Q, ed. John S. Kloppenborg (Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press International, 1995), pp. 23-24, and for further discussion C. M. Tuckett, "Les Logia et le Juda'i'sme," Foi et Vie 92, no. 5 (1993): 8 0 - 8 3 , and idem, Q, pp. 196-201. The latter is probably correct to conclude that "this generation" is "simply the non-responsive part of the Jewish people." 74. See the review of opinion in Kloppenborg, Formation, pp. 113-14. 75. The exception is in the missionary discourse: 10:5 ek; rjv 8' av 10:8 ei<; Vyv eiaeABTyte OIKIOCV 10:10 eic, rjv 8' av JI6A,IV eiaeA.0ni;e av noXiv eio£pxr|0"8E Although I am not among their number, many do not assign Lk 10:8 to Q, so for them Q's missionary discourse did not have a thrice-repeated formula (see p. 109). 76. The fourth beatitude deliberately breaks the pattern; see chap. 3 herein. 77. The parallels in Mt 5:46 (xiva nioOdv exexe) and 5:47 (xi nepiaodv noieTxe) are editorial. uto96c, (Mt: 10 times; Mk: 1; Lk: 3) is Matthean, uiaBoc, + e%exe is redactional in Mt 6:1, and xi nepiccdv rcounxe recalls the redactional 5:20 and forms an editorial inclusio. Luke's phrase, on the other hand, is not clearly redactional (Joachim Jeremias, Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums, MeyerK [Gottingen: Vandenhoeck &C Ruprecht, 1980], p. 144). Further, the Lukan expression has a parallel in Did. 1:3 (cf. 1 Pet 2:20), which does not The Compositional History of Q 6:41 6:42 6:42 TO K&pcpoc; TO ev TCD ocpGaAjico TOU a8eA,(po$ aou TO Kdpcpoq £K TOV ocpGaAjixri) aoi) TO K&pcpoc, TO ev TCO 6(pGaA,|icp TO\3 aSeAxpou a o o 7:24 7:25 T I e^f|A,9(XTe... GeaoaaGai aAAa T I e^f|A,8aTe i5etv 7:26 aXXa %i e^f\XQa%e ioeTv 19 11:18 ev BeeA,t,e(ioi)A, eKpdA,A£iv ue TCC 8auiovia 11:19 eyoo ev Bee^efiouA, eicPaAAcD Td8ai|i6via 11:20 ev 5aKT\)Xco 0eo\> eKP&AAco Td 8aiuovia 11:42 ouai \)|iTv Totq OocpioaToiq OTI + verb ending in -Te 11:43 o\)ai \)|itv Totq Oapioatoiq OTI + verb ending in -Te OTI + verb ending in -Te 11:44 ovai vjitv 11:46 \)^itv Totq VOUIKOK; ooai OTI + verb ending in -Te 11:47 ouai •uii.Tv OTI + verb ending in -Te OTI + verb ending in -Te78 11:52 ouai x>\nv Totq vojiiKotq Before making further observations it is necessary to consider the location of Q 13:34-35, the lament over Jerusalem. There is no consensus as to where this stood in Q. It appears in Mt 23:37-39, at the end of Matthew's woes. Did Luke position the piece after Jesus' remark that a prophet should not perish away from Jerusalem (Lk 13:33)? 79 Or did Matthew arrange things so as to make the lament end chapter 23 and prepare for chapter 24? 80 Luke is, as a general rule, closer to Q's order. But in this particular case it would seem that Luke moved the unit in order to bring together texts about Jerusalem. Lk 13:2230 (with its redactional introduction naming Jerusalem) is followed by 13:31-33 ("it is impossible for a prophet to be killed outside of Jerusalem") which is in turn followed by 13:34-35 ("Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the city that kills the prophets"). Moreover, Lk 13:34-35 belongs better with the cluster of polemical sayings in Q 11:14-52 than with the hortatory material in Q = Lk 13:33ff. If this is the right conclusion,81 if the lament over Jerusalem did, as in Matthew, conclude the series of woes, then Q's first and third secdepend upon Luke but an oral tradition related to the pre-Q tradition behind Q 6:27-38 (see p. 89 below). 78. One wonders whether Q had woes directed first against Pharisees and then against scribes. In this case Matthew's "scribes and Pharisees" would be redactional (as in 5:20), and Luke would have substituted "lawyers" (vouixoc,: Mt: 1; Mk: 1; Lk: 6) for "scribes" (YpaauaTeiJc,) as he did in 10:25-28 = Mk 12:28-34. 79. So Luhrmann, Redaktion, p. 45; Koester, Gospels, pp. 143-44; Wolfgang Schenk, Synopse zur Redenquelle der Evangelien (Dusseldorf: Patmos, 1981), p. 81. 80. So Jacobson, First Gospel, pp. 209-10; Schulz, Q, p. 349. 81. See further below, pp. 201-3. 20 The Compositional History of Q tions would give us, in addition to the common items listed above, also all of Q's • citations of Scripture82 • addresses to outsiders as "you" 83 • references to Jesus as the coming one84 • plainly deuteronomistic declarations.85 There is one final way in which 11:14-52 takes one back to 3:77:35. Units 12, 13, 14, and 15 are all linked by a key word, 7tovr|p6c,. Q 11:24-26 refers to seven spirits more evil (7iovrjpdtepa) than the first. Q 11:29-32 refers to an evil (Ttovrpa) generation. Q 11:33-36 speaks of an evil (7iovr|p6cJ eye. 11:39-44 says that the Pharisees are full of evil (7tovr)picccJ.86 This is not coincidence but a literary strategy. Moreover, if 11:24-26 concerns an unclean (dcKdGapxov) spirit, 11:39-44 talks about cleansing (KaGapi^ete) the outside of cup and dish and says that giving alms will make all "clean (KcxGcxpd) for you." 87 And if in 11:14-23 the climactic saying is Jesus' declaration that he casts out demons by the finger (5aKT\)A,cp) of God, 11:45-52 opens by asserting that the lawyers do not move a finger (evi xcbv 8aKTA)A,cov) to lift the burden of others. So one can find in Q's third section a chiastic structure: 82. See Q 4:4 (Deut 8:3, introduced with YeYPajti:ai)» 4:8 (Deut 6:13, introduced with YeYpoaiToa), 4:10-11 (Ps 91:11-12, introduced with Y£YPcx7txa0> 4:12 (Deut 6:16); 7:27 (Exod 23:20; Mai 3:1, introduced with yeyfyxniai); 13:35 (Ps 118:26). In the other parts of Q, Scripture is only alluded to, and in no instance is an allusion to a biblical text clearly editorial. Cf. 10:15 (Isa 14:12-15); 12:52-53 (Mic 7:6); 13:19 (Ps 104:12; Dan 4:21 Theod.), 13:27 (Ps 6:9), 13:29 (see pp. 194-95 herein); 17:27 (Gen 7:7, 13). 83. 3:7-17; 7:9, 24-28; 10:13-15; 11:33-52. 84. See above, pp. 6-7. 85. 6:23; 10:13-15; 11:47-51; 13:34-35. I exclude 14:16-24, the parable of the great banquet, because although this has often been interpreted in terms of salvation history (cf. Matthew's clear interpretation), the immediate Q context suggests rather that the unit functions, as do the parables in 12:35ff., as paraenesis for insiders. 86. Instead of novipiac,, Mt 23:25 uses aKpacuac, (="excess," "intemperance"). This is a Matthean hapax legomenon, but Luke's novnpiac, is also a hapax. The decisive factor in favor of Luke's originality is Q's fondness for the related novripoc, (see p. 33). 87. The differences here between Matthew (23:26: "First cleanse the inside of the cup so that the outside also may become clean") and Luke (11:41: "But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you") are notorious. An explanation in terms of either Matthean or Lukan redaction seems farfetched. One suspects that Wellhausen was correct: the phrase "give for alms those things which are within" goes back to the Aramaic zakkau, "cleanse the inside" to the Aramaic dakkau. See his Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1905), pp. 36-37; and cf. M. Black, "The Aramaic Dimension in Q with Notes on Luke 17:22 and Matthew 24:26 (Luke 17:23)," JSNT 40 (1990): 37. The likelihood that Matthew and Luke here preserve translation variants is possible if Matthew knew not only the woes of Q but a related tradition in M; see n. 68. 21 The Compositional History of Q a. Jesus casts out demons by (jod s oociccuAcp h. (imfiaDTOV snirir and seven TtovnooTRoa snirirs demonology c. the novrtpd generation c. the 7tovr|p6c, eye b. how those full of Ttovrpiac, can become KaBcxpd 1 > woes a. lawyers do not lift one of their SOCKT'UA.COV to help others J As in the chiastic structure proposed for Q's first section, here t o o we find pairs of opposites (a-a, b-b). Q's FOURTH SECTION, 12:2-32 Q's fourth section, I should like to suggest, contains just two large units: 17. Do not Fear (Q 12:2-12) 18. Do not be Anxious (Q 12:22-32) The latter, whose key word is (lepijivdco (12:22, 25, 26), 88 calls for contemplation of the ravens and the lilies in order to put earthly anxiety to rest. The former, whose key word is (poPeo|ica (12:4, 5, 7), is about being unafraid — unafraid to proclaim the gospel (12:2-3), unafraid of those who can kill the body (12:4-7), unafraid of those before whom one stands when put on trial (12:8-12). Surely Q 12:2-12, as others have observed, had its original Sitz im Leben "in the consoling and admonishing paraenesis for the wandering missionaries." 89 The passage is primarily a call to faithful martyrdom. It is addressed to people who must worry about the death of the body (12:4), about confession before the authorities (12:8-9), about defense before synagogues and rulers (12:11). Now while we have sufficient evidence that some early Christians were indeed persecuted and (on very rare occasions) even killed, these were in every instance leaders or missionaries. That missionaries are indeed in view throughout Q 12:2-12 is strongly suggested by its introduction (Q 12:2-3), which appears to be about proclamation: "What I say to you in the dark, tell in the light; and what you hear whispered, proclaim from the housetops" (Q 12:3). 90 An original Sitz im Leben in the Christian mission must also be reck88. Cf. Mt 6:25, 27, 28, 31, 34. 89. Sato, Q und Prophetie, p. 389. Cf. Kloppenborg, Formation, p. 239 (for 12:4-7); Uro, Sheep, pp. 195-97. 90. Here Luke's form is secondary, Mt 10:27 original; see Da vies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 2, pp. 204-205; Kloppenborg, Formation, p. 207 n. 148. 22 The Compositional History of Q oned highly likely for 12:22-32, which poetically depicts the ravens and lilies, which neither sow nor reap and yet are fed and dressed in splendor. 91 This famous passage opens with 8id xomo, which presumably harks back to 12:11-12, where the missionaries brought before authorities are told they need not be anxious. 92 One doubts that 12:22-32 was originally addressed either to the Jewish public at large or to a Christian community in general (although it is addressed to such in Matthew and Luke). 93 According to David Catchpole, the passage does not contain prescriptions for normal existence but rather implies "abandonment of life-sustaining work." 94 In the words of Ulrich Luz, "Why does Jesus say that birds do not do the work of men, and that lilies do not do the work of women? This makes sense only if it is applied to men and women who have left their ordinary work for the sake of the kingdom of God." 95 Luz infers, as have others, that "in the Sayings Source [Q] the text probably was related primarily to itinerant radicals." 96 While it would make sense to tell missionaries to lay aside anxiety about food and drink and clothing as they go about wholly occupied with serving the kingdom of God, as general religious instruction the relevance or even meaning of most of the sayings in Q 12:22-32 remains difficult to fathom. The section — as the history of its interpretation reveals97 — 91. Lk 12:32, which contains no Lukan redactional traits (Jeremias, Sprache, p. 218), may be tentatively assigned to Q. Although it has no Matthean parallel, it is in the middle of Q material, and its inclusion in Mt 6:33 would be anomalous given the Sermon on the Mount's general audience (cf. Mt 7:28-29). Further, "do not fear" in Q 12:32 harks back to Q 12:4, "your father" links up with Q 12:30, and "kingdom" appears in 12:31. 92. Cf. Odar Wischmeyer, "Matthaus 6,25-34 par. Die Spruchreihe vom Sorgen," ZNW 85 (1994): 5. 93. Paul Hoffmann, "Die Spriiche vom Sorgen in der vorsynoptischen Uberlieferung," in Tradition und Situation: Studien zur Jesusiiberlieferung in der Logienquelle und den synoptischen Evangelien (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1995), pp. 88-106, argues that Jesus himself—he accepts the authenticity of Q 12:22c, d, 24, 27-28, 29, 30b — was concerned with the overcoming of anxiety in the conditions of daily life. However that may be (I am not persuaded), he does rightly contend that in Q the words were for missionaries. 94. David R. Catchpole, "The Question of Q," Sewanee Theological Review 36 (1992): 40. Catchpole goes on to speak, surely justly, of "this frankly unrealistic teaching." 95. Ulrich Luz, Matthew in History: Interpretation, Influence, and Effects (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1994), p. 29. 96. Matthew 1-7: A Commentary (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1989), p. 408. Cf. Heinz Schiirmann, "Das Zeugnis der Redenquelle fur die Basileia-Verkundigung Jesu," in Delobel, Logia, p. 158; Dieter Zeller, Die weisheitlichen Mahnspruche bei den Synoptikern, FB, vol. 17 (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1977), p. 92. Kloppenborg, Formation, p. 239, acknowledges that 12:22b-28 is among those texts (including 10:4-11) which "may have had their Sitz im Leben in the instructions given to and carried by wandering charismatic preachers." Sato, Q und Prophetie, pp. 218-19, 389-90, believes that although the unit originally addressed disciples in the narrow sense, it came in Q to be instruction for the entire community. Wischmeyer, "Matthaus 6,25-34 par.," pp. 14-15, unpersuasively counters Luz by offering that the text is not exclusively oriented toward a particular social stratum and that the disciples of Jesus were in principle an open group. 97. See Luz, Matthew 1-7, pp. 409-11. The Compositional History of Q 23 does not "address ordinary people's realistic anxieties about the basic necessities of life, food and clothing." 98 Gerd Theissen is correct: It is wrong to read words like this [Q 12:22-32] in the mood of a family walk on a Sunday afternoon. There is nothing here about delight in birds and flowers and green fields. On the contrary, these words express the harshness of the free existence of the wandering charismatics, without homes and without protection, travelling through the country with no possessions and no occupation. The final words, "Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Let the day's own trouble be sufficient for the day" (Matt. 6.34), may well be born of bitter experience." One can readily imagine Paul, given his way of life as a missionary, taking Q 12:22-32 to heart (even though there is no evidence that he did); but can we so easily envisage him who warned the Thessalonians to stay at their jobs (2 Thess 3:6-13) telling his congregations to live according to Q 12:22-32? Certainly both Matthew and Luke, by putting the verses where they did, sought to make the instruction somehow germane to all. But this application involved a shift in meaning (just as did the later adoption of the missionary discourse by the synoptic evangelists). In the beginning, "Seek his kingdom and these things will be given to you as well" (Q 12:31) was an expression to itinerants of "the confidence that the problem of finding enough to live on would be solved." 100 Units 17 (12:2-12) and 18 (12:22-32), originally composed for the same setting in life, also exhibit a common structure in their central parts, in 12:4-7 and 12:22-31: 1 0 1 Identification of speaker and audience: "I say to you" (Aiyco vulv) (Q 12:4) "I say to you" (A-eyco \)|i?v) (Q 12:22) Opening imperative: "Do not fear" (Q 12:4) "Do not be anxious" (Q 12:22) 98. With due respect to Richard A. Horsley, "Q and Jesus," p. 203. One must in any case avoid easy generalizations about the economic deprivation of Galilean peasants or Jesus' first followers; see Thomas E. Schmidt, Hostility to Wealth in the Synoptic Gospels, JSNTSS, vol. 15 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1987), pp. 17-30. 99. Theissen, Sociology, p. 13. 100. Ibid., p. 14. 101. Although I have modified his analysis, for what follows I am greatly indebted to Ronald A. Piper's original work, Wisdom in the Q Tradition: The Aphoristic Teaching of Jesus, SNTSMS, vol. 61 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989). 24 The Compositional History of Q Supporting statement (introduced with preposition): "But (5e) I will warn you whom to fear" (Q 12:5) "For (yap) life is more than food" (Q 12:23) 102 First illustration: "Are not five sparrows sold?" (Q 12:6) "Consider the ravens" (Q 12:24) Second illustration: "Even the hairs of your head" (Q 12:7a) "Consider the lilies" (Q 12:27-28) Conclusion: "Fear not; you are of more value" (Q 12:7b) "Do not be anxious ...these will be yours" (Q 12:29-31) 103 Both units are also related in that both concern the Father's care for his own and argue from the lesser to the greater (Q 12:7, 24, 28). We can be fairly confident that the common structure is due to deliberate editorial activity. For both Q 12:4-7 and 12:22-31 only fit the pattern because someone expanded originally smaller units. At the very least, Q 12:7a and 12:29-31, which are essential to the scheme, must be regarded as secondary.104 It seems, then, that units 17 (12:212) and 18 (12:22-31) reflect the same editorial hand, one concerned with encouraging itinerant missionaries.105 We have already met this concern before, in Q's second section, 9:5711:13. And this is not the only strong link between sections 2 (= units 6-10, Q 9:57-11:13) and 4 (= units 17-18, Q 12:2-32). Q 12:2-3 refers to things covered and uncovered, that is, hidden and revealed. This reminds one of 10:21-24, which also pertains to hidden things be102. Although the International Q Project prints the Matthean form of Q 12:23 (see Mt 6:25), this is probably secondary; see Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 1, p. 648. 103. The analysis omits Lk 12:25 (cf. Mt 6:27); this, however, does not belong to the original composition but is a secondary insertion; so already T. W. Manson, The Teaching of Jesus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1935), p. 56. Cf. R. A. Piper, Wisdom, p. 28. But note R. J. Dillon, "Ravens, Lilies, and the Kingdom of God (Matthew 6:25-33/ Luke 12:22-31)," CBQ 53 (1991): 605-27. 104. On Q 12:7a see herein, p. 173, and Jacques Schlosser, "Le Logion de Mt 10,28 par. Lc 12,4-5," in Van Segbroeck, Four Gospels, vol. 1, p. 622. For the secondary character of Q 12:29-31 see Kloppenborg, Formation, p. 218. Tuckett, Q, pp. 149-50, argues for the secondary character of 12:23. 105. Tuckett, Q, pp. 315-19, argues that in both 12:4ff. and 12:22ff. "an earlier tradition expressing confidence in God's care for His creation" has been "overlaid by a secondary layer of tradition placing concern for the material needs of life very low on any agenda of priorities and placing all weight on the eschatological future kingdom of God." If so this is additional reason for finding the same editorial hand in these two units. 25 The Compositional History of Q ing revealed. Much more important, the structure common to 12:4-7 and 12:22-31 also appears in 11:9-13: Identification of speaker and audience: "And I say to you" (Aiyco tyuv) (Q 11:9) Opening imperative: "Ask... seek... knock" (Q 11:9) Supporting statement (introduced with preposition): "For (yap) everyone who asks" (Q 11:10) First illustration: Loaf and stone (Q 11:11)106 Second illustration: Fish and serpent (Q 11:12) Conclusion: "How much more will your heavenly Father" (Q 11:13) 107 Not only is the arrangement identical but the theme is once again God's care, and the argument, just like the arguments in 12:7, 12:14, and 12:28, moves from the lesser (evil human fathers) to the greater (God the Father, cf. 12:30). Indeed, 11:13, 12:7, 12:24, and 12:28 contain closely related expressions: 11:13 ooco uSAAov 12:7 rcoAAcov 12:24 (7i6oco) uotAAov 12:28 7ioaco uaAAov . . . 8ioc(pepeTe 8iacpepexe Once more then we see evidence of the same hand; that is, the same editor probably put together at least 11:9-13, 12:4-7, and 12:22-31. 1 0 8 106. The TIC/TIVCX e^ vuSv of 11:11 recalls the TIC, &; vuxbv of 12:25. 107. R. A. Piper, Wisdom, argues that, on the basis of structure, 6:37-42 and 6:43-45 belong with Q 11:9-13, 12:4-7, and 12:22-31. But 6:37-42 and 6:43-45 are different. The latter lacks an imperatival opening and makes no reference to God's care; and "the composition of Luke 6:43-45 is more likely a three-part chiastic form with the sayings about the good and bad trees (vv. 43-44a) balancing the sayings about good and bad people (v. 45) on either side of the saying about gathering figs from thorns (v. 44b)" (so Harry T. Fleddermann, review of Wisdom in the Q Tradition, by R. A. Piper, CBQ 53 [1991]: 716). Q 6:37-42 also makes no reference to God's care, and it fails to argue from the lesser to the greater. There is also the problem that many regard 6:37-38 as thematically separate from 6:39ff; see chap. 2 herein, pp. 92-93. 108. Because Jesus himself probably composed Q 11:9-13, which cannot be decomposed (see Allison and Davies, Matthew, vol. 1, p. 682; Luz, Matthew 1-7, p. 421), one presumes that it was the model for 12:4-7 and 12:22-31. (The closest parallel outside the Jesus tradition known to me is Prov 6:25-29.) 26 The Compositional History of Q THE FIFTH SECTION, Q 12:33-22:30 Following the central portion of Q and its missionary material is Q 12:33-22:30, Q's fifth and final section. It consists of the following units, many of them very brief: 19. Treasure in Heaven (Q 12:33-34) 1 0 9 20. Watching for the Parousia (Q 12:35-40) 110 21. Parable of Servants (Q 12:42-46[+ 47-48?]) 22. Fire and Division (Q 1 2 : 4 9 - 5 3 ) m 23. Interpreting Signs (Q 12:54-56) 112 24. Parable of Reconciliation (Q 12:58-59) 25. Parable of the Mustard Seed (Q 13:18-19) 26. Parable of the Leaven (Q 13:20-21) 27. The Narrow Door (Q 13:23-24) 28. The Shut Door (Q 13:25-27) 29. Sayings about Eschatological Reversal (Q 13:28-30 + 14:11) 30. The Great Supper (Q 14:16-24) 31. Hating Family (Q 14:26) 32. Taking Up the Cross (Q 14:27) 33. Parable of Salt (Q 14:34-35) 109. For the good possibility that Q 12:33-34 was prefaced by Mt 6:19 see W. Pesch, "Zur Exegese von Mt 6,19-21 und Lk 12,33-34," Bib 40 (I960): 356-78. 110. Only vv. 3 9 - 4 0 are paralleled in Matthew; but vv. 35(36)-38 should be assigned to Q; see B. Kollmann, "Lk 12.35-38 —ein Gleichnis der Logienquelle," ZNW 81 (1990): 2 5 4 - 6 1 , and Claus-Peter Marz, " . . . lasst eure Lampen brennen!" Studien zur Q-Vorlage von Lk 12,35-14,24, ETS, vol. 20 (Leipzig: St. Benno, 1991), pp. 58-71. 111. There is disagreement about whether or not vv. 49-50 stood in Q. Against inclusion is their omission from Matthew. But in favor of inclusion are (1) the close thematic connection with v. 51 (which "dwells further on the point made in v. 49" — so Manson, Sayings, p. 120); (2) the pre-Lukan character of Lk 12:49-50 (see Jeremias, Sprache, p. 223); (3) the use of pdMco in both Lk 12:49-50 and Matthew's parallel to 12:51 (Mt 10:34 = Q); and (4) the catchword connection that would exist if one were to accept the International Q Project's text for Q 12:54-56 (nvp in Q 12:49,7ruppd£ei in Q 12:54; but see next note). See further Marz, Lampen, pp. 9-20; also P. Sellew, "Reconstruction of Q 12:33-59," in Society of Biblical Literature 1987 Seminar Papers, ed. Kent Harold Richards (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1987), pp. 645-46. Marz assigns v. 49 but not v. 50 to Q and sees Matthew's jroppd^ei (Mt 16:2-3), not as part of a catchword connection that existed in Q, but as a Matthean reminiscence of Lk 12:49. 112. Is the Q text to be found in the obscure Mt 16:2-3 (so the International Q Project) or in the easier-to-understand Lk 12:54-56 (which reflects Palestinian conditions)? Full discussion in Marz, Lampen, pp. 3 2 - 4 3 . The Compositional History of Q 27 34. The Lost Sheep (Q 15:4-7) 35. God and Mammon (Q 16:13) 36. Law and Prophets (Q 16:16-17) 37. Divorce (Q 16:18) 38. Offending and Forgiving (Q 17:1-4) 39. Faith (Q 17:6) 40. Day of the Son of Man (Q 17:22-37) 41. Parable of the Pounds (Q 19:12-26) 42. Thrones and the Twelve Tribes (Q 22:28-30) Examination of this concluding portion of Q reveals several things not seen previously in Q — long narrative parables which have to do explicitly with eschatological judgment (Q 12:42-48; 14:16-24; 19:1226), detailed teaching on the latter days (17:22-37; 22:28-30), counsel to be prepared for the day of the Son of man (12:35-40, 42-48; 17:2237; 19:12-26), and short units seemingly unconnected to surrounding material (14:34-35; 16:13, 16-18; 17:6). Q 12:33ff. also distinguishes itself by its concern with reconciliation (Q 12:58-59; 17:1-4), the delay of the parousia (Q 12:38, 45; 19:13), and the possible dangers of conventional family ties (Q 12:49-53; 14:20, 26). Just as noticeable are the things that are not present. There is nothing here particularly directed to itinerant missionaries. Nor is there much attempt to console. Nor is the polemic so characteristic of Q's first and third sections present. The material, rather, is hortatory from beginning to end. Hearers are not told that God the Father will care for them, or how their opponents have gone wrong, but how they must act in the eschatological crisis, how they should prepare themselves for the day of the Son of man. The nearness of the end is not assumed (as it is in the earlier sections) but rather taught and expanded upon at length, and its suddenness becomes a motive for preparation. Here, especially in the parables with unfaithful servants, we are again and again faced with the possibility that the followers of Jesus may themselves not be ready for the eschatological judgment. T. W. Manson set the rubric, "The future," over Q 12:35-17:37. 113 But much here has little to do with eschatology. The section contains, for instance, the saying about taking up one's cross (Q 14:27), the parable about salt (Q 14:34-35), the illustration of the lost sheep (Q 15:4-7), the logion about God and mammon (Q 16:13), and the prohibition of divorce (Q 16:18). The truth is that, although eschatology 113. Sayings, p. 5. 28 The Compositional History of Q seems to be the main interest in some portions, one can hardly find a consistent theme within Q 12:33ff. — another fact which separates it from Q's earlier sections. Kloppenborg is reduced to collecting Q 1 5 : 3 7, 16:13, 16:17-18, and 17:1-6 under the title "various parables and sayings." 114 Jacobson has been honest enough to confess, "I have not yet been able to discern... unity in t h i s . . . 'section' of Q." 1 1 5 1 have had the same experience. But if there is no thematic unity, there is a functional unity. From beginning to end the material presents practical advice and exhortation. We here meet counsels that were relatively commonplace in the early church. 116 Many early Christian sources enjoin believers to discern the time and prepare for the end (even though the Lord may delay),117 to beware of drunkenness and intemperance, 118 to forgive and to be reconciled with others, 119 to strive to enter the kingdom of God because not all will,120 to serve God instead of mammon, 121 to fulfil the commandments, 122 to avoid causing others to stumble,123 and to have faith.124 There are also texts which teach that those who have suffered will be rewarded. 125 While Q 12:33ff. may not be catechetical in the proper sense of the word, 126 the section remains transparently practical wisdom with a strong eschatological component. Even if the precise setting is unclear, the unit must nonetheless have been composed to shape the behavior of ordinary Christians. It is paraenesis. 114. Formation, p. 92. 115. Arland D. Jacobson, "The History of the Composition of the Synoptic Sayings Source, Q," in Richards, 1987 Seminar Papers, p. 288. Cf. his comments in First Gospel, p. 184, and Horsley, "Q and Jesus," p. 195 ("it is difficult to discern how Q materials are 'clustered' once we move into Luke 13-16"). 116. Contrast the counsels in 12:2-12 and 22-32: it is harder to find parallels to these outside the Jesus tradition. 117. Q 12:35-48, 54-56; 14:16-24; cf. Rom 13:11-14; 1 Cor 7:26; Col 4:5; 1 Thess 5:1-11; Jas 5:7-8; 1 Pet 1:13; 4:7; 2 Pet 3:1-13; Didache 16; Ignatius, Smyr. 9; 2 Clem. 16. 118. Q 12:45; cf. Rom 13:13; 1 Cor 5:11; 6:9-11; Gal 5:20-21; Eph 5:18; 1 Thess 5:6-7; 1 Pet 4:3. 119. Q 12:58-59,17:1-4; cf. Rom 12:16; 14:13 (this may depend upon the Jesus tradition), 14:19; 15:5; 2 Cor 13:11; Gal 5:26-6:1; Eph 4:32; 1 Thess 5:13, 15; Jas 4:11-12; 5:9, 19-20; 1 Pet 2:1; 3:8-9; Did. 2:7; 14; 15:3-4. 120. Q 13:23-30,14:34-35 (cf. the interpretation of Kloppenborg, Formation, p. 234: "The saying warns that those who do not take seriously the demands of discipleship outlined in 14:26, 27 and 17:33 will be cast forth like insipid salt"); cf. 1 Cor 6:9; Gal 5:21; Eph 5:5; Jas 1:22-2:25; Ignatius, Ephesians 16. 121. Q 12:33-34; 16:13; cf. 1 Tim 6:10; Jas 1:9-11; 2:1-7; 5:1-6; Polycarp, Ep. 4. 122. Q 16:16-17; cf. Rom 13:8-10; Gal 5:13-15; Jas 2:8-13; Did. 4:13. 123. Q 17:1-2; cf. Rom 14:13; 1 Cor 8:9, 13. 124. Q 17:6; cf. Romans 3 - 4 ; Galatians 3; Jas 1:6; 5:15. 125. Q 22:28-30; cf. Acts 14:22; 1 Pet 1:6-9; 3:14; 4:12-13; Rev 2 : 9 - 1 1 . 126. See W. D. Davies, The Setting of the Sermon on the Mount (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1963), pp. 366-86. 29 The Compositional History of Q Many of the units in Q 12:33ff. were probably at one time connected by catchword, as one can see at a glance: 12:33-34 12:35-40 12:42-48 KA,e7iTT|(; 8iop\)GGO\)aw KA£71TT|C, 8iopvx6fjvai icupiov oiKo8eo7ioTr|c/oTKOv copa 8o\)A,oi Ktipioc, OIKOVOUOC, copa 8O\)A,OCJ 8i%oxour|oei 12:49-53 Sixaoai xfrv yfjv 7i\5p 12:54-56 xfjc, yfJQ 7i\)ppat,ei127 8iaKpiveiv 12:58-59 13:18-19 Kpivexe/Kpixfj/Kpixf|c; 3Ar|0f|ar| 128 etc, ePaA,ev (3aaiA,eia eic, xou 0eot> 13:20-21 paoiX.eiav xou 0eov 13:23-24 13:25-26 0\>pac, 0vpav 1 2 9 14:26 14:27 |!0\) |ia6r|xficj 16:16 16:17 VOIIOl) p.o\) (ia9rixf|Cj v6|ioq 17:1-4 17:6 0dA,cxoGav 9aA,door| oo\> CXKOVOTI \)7ifiK0\)aev... , u|itv Given that many of the units, but not all, are apparently ordered according to a catchword scheme,130 one must wonder whether the person who first put together Q 12:33-22:30 expanded an already-existing col127. On this possible link see n. I l l ; also Claus-Peter Marz, "Zur Q-Rezeption in Lk 12,35-13,35 (14,1-24)," in The Synoptic Gospels: Source Criticism and the New Literary Criticism, ed. Camille Focant, BETL, vol. 110 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1993), pp. 191-92. 128. So Matthew. Luke has Pcc\eT. 129. noAAoi appears in Q 13:23-24 and 13:28-29 as well as in the Matthean versions of Q 13:25 (Mt 7:22) and 13:30 (Mt 20:16). This makes it possible that in Q there was a string of four sayings about "the many," about those excluded from the kingdom. Further, the subsequent parable of the great supper in its Lukan version has invitations being sent to "many" (Lk 14:16), and Mt 22:1-14 ends with yet another saying about "many." 130. There are some catchword links in Q's first four sections, but the difference is that there is always also a thematic connection; see, e.g., 10:21-24; 11:2-4, 9-13 (see pp. 14-15) and 24-26, 29-32, 33-36, 3 9 - 4 4 (see pp. 16-17). Note also 12:6ff.: 12:6 evomiov 12:9 12:8 evconiov tcov dyyeXoov xov Geo\5 6 vvoq xou dvGpobrccov %ox> 6eo\5 30 The Compositional History of Q lection whose compositional procedure of abutting units with common words he or she abandoned. However that may be, the artificial nature of the links helps explain why scholars have struggled to generalize about the content of 12:33ff. At the same time, the absence of a uniting theme — as opposed to a uniting function, exhortation — means that many of the units can function in splendid isolation, so that their meaning is not dictated by immediate context; they remain open to broad and even multiple interpretations. A THEORY OF Q ' S COMPOSITIONAL HISTORY As already observed, Dieter Zeller associated Q with missionaries. He is hardly the only one to have done so. Ernst Kasemann thought that "the original Sitz im Leben" was in the early Jewish Christian mission: Q supplied "injunctions for its discipleship and provision for its mission." 131 H. Kasting proposed that Q was a memory aid for the missionaries of the early community.132 Steck similarly claimed that Q was instruction for "Israelprediger," preachers to Israel.133 So too Horst Robert Balz,134 Paul Hoffmann,135 and Joachim Gnilka.136 Luise Schottroff and Wolfgang Stegemann have written that "the people behind the Sayings-source" were "wandering preachers." 137 To these assertions it has been objected that parts of Q "are directed at a much broader group than simply missionaries." 138 This complaint is valid if one is thinking about all of Q. But if, with Zeller, we are instead thinking about an early stage of Q to which much material was later added, the objection loses its force.139 There is much to be said for the view that at least Q 9:57-11:13 (our second section) plus 12:2-32 12:10 xovuiov xoQ dvGpcbno'u 12:10 TO ccyiov nvetiucc 12:12 TO ayiov rcveuua 12:11 \n\ uepiuvf|orp;e 12:22 |j.fi uepiuvaxe 131. New Testament Questions, pp. 119-20. Cf. Werner Georg Kiimmel, Introduction to the New Testament, rev. ed. (Nashville: Abingdon, 1975), p. 73. 132. Die Anfange der urchristlichen Mission, BEvT, vol. 55 (Munich: Kaiser, 1969), p. 97. 133. Israel, p. 288. 134. Methodische Probleme der neutestamentlichen Cbristologie, WMANT, vol. 25 (Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1967), pp. 167-71. 135. Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle, 3d ed., NTAbh, vol. 8 (Miinster: Aschendorff, 1982), pp. 333-34. 136. Theologie des Neuen Testaments (Freiburg: Herder, 1994), p. 134. 137. Jesus and the Hope of the Poor (Maryknoll, N.Y.: Orbis, 1986), p. 38. 138. Kloppenborg, Formation, p. 25. Cf. R. A. Piper, Wisdom, pp. 184-85. 139. Cf. Uro, Sheep, on rhe missionary discourse. The Compositional History of Q 31 (our fourth section) preserves a source which originally functioned as guidance for itinerant missionaries. Both Q 9:57-11:13 and 12:2-32 were, as we have seen, originally put together with missionaries in mind, and they are separated by Q 11:14-52, which exhibits altogether different interests. When one adds that the transitions from 11:13 to 11:14 and from 11:52 to 12:2 are anything but smooth, the thought arises that maybe 11:14-52, our third section, is an interpolation of the sort met with so frequently in the biblical literature, especially the prophets. If one removes 11:14-52 from Q, the result is the juxtaposition of three concurrent units (11:9-13; 12:212, 22-32) which (1) exhibit the very same structure (see pp. 23-25), and (2) in similar ways encourage itinerants to trust to the care of the heavenly Father (see pp. 14-15). There is, then, reason to postulate that 11:14-52 is a large insertion which separates two sections that were once united in a single document. That is, one may tentatively reconstruct behind Q an old document of instruction and encouragement for missionaries which included at least the following: • Call Stories (9:57-62) • Instructions for Missionaries (10:2-16) • Teaching on Eschatological Revelation (10:21-24) • The Lord's Prayer (11:2-4) • On Seeking and Finding (11:9-13) • Counsel against Fear (12:2-12) • Counsel against Anxiety (12:22-32) Regarding the Sitz im Leben of this material, which I shall label Q 1 , we should probably not envisage individual missionaries wandering about with copies to consult. For most early Christians, and so presumably most Christian missionaries, were probably illiterate.140 So one conjectures that among the early missionaries there was a literate teacher who drew up for his or her own use a document — a looseleaf notebook such as Sato envisions? — to help instruct and encourage other missionaries.141 140. Cf. Harry Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), pp. 1-10. 141. William G. Doty once wondered whether Paul intended his letters to be summaries that would be expounded upon by their commissioned carriers: Letters in Primitive Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1972), pp. 46-47. One wonders whether, in like fashion, Q1 was a sort of outline of instruction, a foundation for further teaching. 32 The Compositional History of Q What then of the remainder of Q? First of all, the phenomenon of "updating" a document for a new audience is quite common in the biblical tradition. Hosea, for instance, reworks northern prophecies and applies them to Judah. 142 It seems a good guess that, in an analogous fashion, someone took up the missionary source behind Q 9:57-11:13 and 12:2-32 and, in order to make it pertinent to a new situation, added the various traditions in Q 12:33ff. Units 19-42 do not have itinerant missionaries in particular in view but rather disciples in the broader sense. So at this stage, which I shall call Q 2 , the audience addressed by Jesus' words was enlarged. The earlier collection, with its narrow focus upon itinerants, was, through supplementation with common paraenetical materials, turned into a tract of general Christian exhortation. This creative reapplication of the Jesus tradition can be viewed as a large step toward the synoptics, wherein all sorts of sayings that must have been first addressed to disciples in the narrow sense, that is, missionary companions of Jesus, were made relevant to all church members. 143 The hypothesis so far is that a document addressed to missionaries (Q 9:57-11:13 + 12:2-32, my sections 2 and 4) was expanded by the addition at the end of the general counsels in 12:33-22:30 (my section 5). This leaves the following units unaccounted for: 1. The Proclamation of John the Baptist (3:7-9, 16-17) 2. The Temptations of Jesus (4:1-13) 3. The Sermon on the Plain (6:20-49) 4. The Centurion's Servant (7:1-10) 5. John and Jesus (7:18-35) 11. Beelzebul (11:14-23) 12. Unclean Spirit (11:24-26) 13. Sign of Jonah (11:29-32) 14. Light (11:33-36) 15. Woes against Pharisees (11:39-44) 16. Woes against Lawyers (11:45-51 + 13:34-35 + 11:52) 142. E.g., 1:7; 2:2; 4:15; 5:5; 6:4, 11; 8:14; see Brevard S. Childs, Introduction to the Old Testament as Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1979), pp. 378-79. 143. Although his conclusions are very different from mine, Kloppenborg, " 'Easter Faith' and Q," p. 75, still recognizes that "missionary instructions have in the course of redaction been enveloped and bracketed literarily by sayings which reflect a broader ecclesial Sitz." 33 The Compositional History of Q My working hypothesis is that all of this material, which comprises my sections 1 and 3, was added at the third stage of Q's formation (Q3). In other words, someone prefaced most of it to Q 1 + Q 2 (= 9:57-11:13 + 12:2-32 + 12:33-22:30) and then inserted Q 11:14-52 (section 3) between Q 11:13 and 12:2. Pictorially — Q' 9:57-11:13 12:2-32 Q1 9:57-11:13 12:2-32 Q3 3:7-7:35 + + Q2 12:33-22:30 Q1 + Q3 + Q1 9:57-11:13 11:14-52 12:2-32 + Q2 12:33-22:30 It says much for the postulated compositional history that the units left, after the missionary and paraenetic materials in the middle and end of Q have been set aside, are united by common themes, interests, and key expressions, and that these differentiate the units from the rest of Q. As already observed, Q 3:7-7:35 (section 1) and 11:14-51, 13:34-35, and 11:52 (section 3) are both filled with polemic against outsiders 144 and when taken together account for • all of Q's references to Jesus' miracles145 • all of Q's sayings about "this generation" • all of Q's statements about sophia • all of Q's material on demonology • all of Q's uses of 7i&xr|p to mean "ancestor" • all of Q's citations of Scripture • all of Q's addresses to outsiders as "you" • all of Q's references to Jesus as the coming one • Q's plainly Deuteronomistic declarations • nine of Q's ten texts where a phrase or formula is repeated three times in near succession • eight of nine of Q's uses of 7iovrjp6<;. 144. Q's polemic has been clarified by Tuckett, Q, pp. 283-323: it is the response not to persecution but apathy. 145. Note also that in both 4:1-13 and 11:29 Jesus refuses to perform a miracle at another's behest. 34 The Compositional History of Q Q 3 is characterized by a very rich Christology. Q' does record the saying about revelation being made through the Son (10:21-24), and throughout Q 2 Jesus is the coming Son of man. But there is no elaboration of christological topics in either Q 1 or Q 2 . It is otherwise in Q 3 . Q 3:16-17 prophesies the coming one who will baptize with fire. Q 4:1-13 presents Jesus as the embodiment of the new Israel who overcomes the temptations to which the old Israel succumbed. Q 6:20-23 and 7:1823 make Jesus the anointed one of Isa 61:1. Q 7:1-10 shows him to be a miracle worker. So too 11:14-26, where Jesus' exorcisms in particular mark the presence of the kingdom of God. And 13:34-35 makes Jesus the eschatological figure whom the people will someday bless in the name of the Lord. The interest in Christology naturally goes hand in hand with Q3's focus on John the Baptist.146 If Jesus is the coming one (3:16-17), the Son of God (4:1-13), the Son of man (6:22), and the anointed one of Isaiah 61 (6:20-23; 7:18-23; cf. 13:34-35), then who is John the Baptist? The answer is that he is the eschatological prophet foretold in Mai 3:1, which Jewish and Christian tradition identified with Elijah (cf. Mai 4:5). Although the interest in John is congruent with the interest shown by Q 3 in outsiders, there does not seem to be any polemic against John. 147 Some indeed have found such in 7:28. In this view the phrase "but the least in the kingdom of God is greater than he" qualifies "among those born of women there has not arisen one greater than John" and puts John in his place. But 7:28 is not the product of the joining of two originally independent statements. Nor is the second half a correction of the first half. The two halves go together. John's greatness (the subject of Q 7:24-28a) is the foil for the surpassing greatness of the kingdom, which is the whole point. Those who are alive now and who submit themselves to the rule of God are the most fortunate of all, even more fortunate than the great John himself. Yet another feature of Q 3 that distinguishes it from Q 1 and Q 2 is its apologetical interest in the Scriptures. It is precisely in Q 3 , that is, in 146. Cf. Sato, Q und Prophetie, p. 389; he recognizes the unity of most of Q 3:77:28 and thinks that the section reflects an Auseinandersetzung with sympathizers of the Baptist. Jacobson, First Gospel, pp. 111-25, is unconvincing when he finds different and contradictory evaluations of John in this section. With Kloppenborg, we can assign Q 7:18-23, 2 4 - 2 8 , and 31-35 to the same stage. See also Tuckett, Q, pp. 107-37, on the general coherence of Q's traditions about John. 147. Cf. Streeter, Four Gospels, pp. 291-92: Q "was composed at a time and place where the prestige of John was very considerable." He observes a contrast between Q, where John's testimony is valued because "all held John to be a prophet," and Mark, where "it is not John's personal prestige which is appealed to, but the fact that his coming at all was part of that 'programme,' so to speak, of events, anciently foretold and in the career of our Lord recently fulfilled, which was the main plank of early Christian apologetic." See further now Tuckett, Q, pp. 107-37. On p. 119 Tuckett writes that "there is little evidence to suggest that Q in its present form has any concern to downgrade John." The Compositional History of Q 35 3:7-7:35 (section 1) plus 11:14-52 (section 3), that one finds the Scriptures which Q explicitly quotes. In every case the OT text agrees with the LXX. This strongly implies that at least Q 3 was originally composed in Greek. Q 3 is also distinctive in that it uses the Scriptures in every case to interpret Jesus in eschatological categories. In 4:1-13 the quotations from Deuteronomy, which Jesus himself cites, advance an Israel typology that teaches, among other things, that the last things are like the first. In 6:20-23 and 7:18-23, as already observed, Jesus is the anointed one of Isaiah 61. In 7:27 John the Baptist fulfills the eschatological oracle in Mai 3:1. And in Q 13:35, Ps 118:26 is applied to Jesus in his future coming. There is thus in Q 3 not only a developed concern to root the story of Jesus in Scripture but also a concern to use Scripture to give that story an eschatological interpretation. Before proceeding any further two Q texts require comment. First, 10:13-15, in which Jesus utters woes against cities in Galilee, has struck almost everyone as being out of place.148 It is indeed a rude interruption into Q1's missionary discourse. It does, however, cohere perfectly with the interests of Q 3 . It has to do with outsiders, refers to miracles, uses the positive response of Gentiles as a foil for unbelief in Israel,149 and furthers the theme of rejection — all otherwise features of Q 3 . Moreover, oiyai plus oxi, which introduces 10:13-15, appears otherwise in Q only in Q 3 . 150 So it may well be that Q 10:13-15 is an interpolation from Q 3 and did not originally belong to Q''s missionary discourse. (If this analysis is correct it means that whereas Q 1 and Q 2 each has only one place name, 151 Q 3 shows a very strong geographical interest, for it refers to Jerusalem [4:9; 13:34], Capernaum [7:1; 10:15], Bethsaida [10:13], Chorazin [10:13], Tyre [10:13-14], Sidon [10:13-14], and Nineveh [11:30, 32]). Q 22:28-30 also invites comment. Q, after the parable of the talents (Mt 25:14-30 = Lk 19:12-27), presumably had something close to this: "You are those who have followed me. I appoint you as my Father appointed me to reign in my kingdom; and you will sit on thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel" (Q 22:28-30; cf. Mt 19:28). 152 This is often 148. Cf. Kloppenborg, Formation, p. 194; Tuckett, Q, p. 184. For the reasons see Catchpole, "Mission Charge in Q," pp. 162-63; also Quest, pp. 171-76. 149. See Q 7:1-10 and 11:31-32. (I do not cite Q 13:28-29 because it is about Diaspora Jews; see pp. 176-91 herein.) 150. 1 1 : 4 2 , 4 3 , 4 4 , 4 6 , 4 7 , 5 2 . 151. Sodom is named in 10:12 and 17:29. 152. Matthew probably (1) affixed "in the TiaXiyYevecua" (which has no Aramaic equivalent), (2) dropped "I appoint you," etc. (the clause is assumed by the free variant in Rev 3:21), (3) added "whenever the Son of man sits on the throne of his glory" (the clause enhances the parallelism between Jesus and his disciples and anticipates 25:31), (4) inserted m i ooxoi (to adjust to the previous insertion), and (5) perhaps qualified "thrones" with "twelve" (again making for increased parallelism). 36 The Compositional History of Q thought to have concluded Q, and there is no need to reject this judgment. This would mean, on the theory of Q's history put forward in this chapter, that Q 22:28-30 terminated Q 1 + Q 2 as well as Q 1 + Q 2 + Q 3 . But one also wonders whether it earlier ended Q 1 , that is, whether it originally followed Q 12:32 ("Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom") 153 as the appropriate climax of the encouragement to missionaries. In favor of this conjecture — it is nothing more — are (1) the close thematic link between Q 12:32 and 22:28-30, (2) the catchword connection between the two verses ("kingdom," "father"), (3) the rough transition from the parable of the pounds to Q 22:28-30, (4) the ease of explaining the displacement — the author of Q 2 simply wished to retain the happy ending of Q 1 —and (5) the creation of an appropriate and very satisfying inclusio: "those who have followed me" harks back to the very beginning of Q 1 , to Q 9:57-62, where Jesus calls people to follow him (&KOA,O\)0EG) appears three times in Q 9:57-62 154 ). The chart on the following page summarizes the results of this section by assigning each Q unit to its compositional stage. PARALLELS TO THE PROPOSED COMPOSITIONAL THEORY One might urge against a three-stage theory of Q's compositional history the simpler proposal that a single author was responsible for the entirety. That author began by making certain christological points with the aid of Scripture. Then his or her mind moved to the needs of itinerant missionaries. Finally he or she decided to round off the collection with paraenetical materials. One cannot disprove this hypothesis. There are, however, reasons to suspect that it is not true. First, Q 11:14-52 (section 3) disrupts the thematic connection between Q 11:9-13 (section 2) and 12:2-32 (section 4) and separates three paragraphs which formally belong together. This seems the work of a later hand. Second, although it is of course possible that an author worked with one set of interests for a while and then passed on to others, one is struck by the large number of stylistic and thematic interests which differentiate Q's first and third sections (3:7-7:35 + 11:14-52) from Q's second and fourth sections (9:57-11:13 + 12:2-32) and which distinguish section five (12:33-22:30) from the other four. The differences are sufficiently significant and numerous to invite explanation in terms of multiple authors. 153. On this verse as part of Q see n. 91. 154. And elsewhere in Q only in Q 22:28-30 and 7:9; but this last does not bear the technical sense of discipleship. The Compositional History of Q Q1 Q2 Q3 3:7-9, 16-17 4:1-13 6:20-49 7:1-10 7:18-35 9:57-62 10:2-12 (10:13-15) — 10:16 10:21-24 11:2-4 11:9-13 -»?? 11:14--23 11:24--26 11:29--32 11:33--36 11:39--44 11:45--51 13:34--35 11:52 12:2-12 12:22-32 12:33-34 ??«- 12:35-40 12:42-46 (+47-48?) 12:49-53 12:54-56 12:58-59 13:18-19 13:20-21 13:23-24 13:25-27 13:28-30 14:11 14:16-24 14:26 14:27 14:34-35 15:4-7 16:13 16:16-17 16:18 17:1-4 17:6 17:22-37 19:12-26 (22:28-30) 38 The Compositional History of Q But there is also a third reason. My proposal concerning the formation of Q postulates that one finds the original Q document in the middle, and the major expansions at the beginning and end. Such a postulated history has parallels in other old Jewish documents. There are numerous ancient texts that were enlarged by someone simply adding material at the end. Although the method seems rather mechanical to us, it was evidently common enough. Eccl 12:9-14; Jeremiah 52; Hos 13:16-14:8, 9; Amos 9:11-15; Mic 7:8-20; Mai 4:4, 5-6; LAE 51; and Mk 16:9-20 are all, according to many modern scholars, brief terminal addenda. Closer to what I envisage for Q is the book of Isaiah, which the experts tell us grew from front to back. Chapters 1-39 contain mostly pre-exilic material. Isaiah 40-55 was then added during the exile. Finally postexilic authors added chapters 56-66. 1 5 5 Again, it is a good assumption that someone took the court stories in the first half of Daniel and to them added the visions of the last half.156 And Bel and the Dragon was added to the end still later. Zechariah seems to have gone through a similar evolution: to the oracles already gathered in 1-8 someone subsequently added chapters 9-14. 1 5 7 The second half of the Ascension of Isaiah, chapters 6 - 1 1 , probably once circulated independently and were joined by someone to chapters 1-5.158 First Enoch 106-108 contains late additions. 159 John 21, which follows the obvious conclusion in Jn 20:30-31, is roundly reckoned a secondary ending. The History of the Rechabites ends with five chapters (19-23) which, like John 21, appear to be late because they also follow an obvious conclusion (18:1-4). Proverbs may supply us with an example from the wisdom tradition: the latter chapters are often thought to contain a series of successive appendices.160 Some collections of the Psalms likewise grew in this way, as is apparent from Psalms 150A155, which do not appear in the MT but are known from the Dead Sea Scrolls and ancient versions. Just as books were enlarged through additions placed at the end, they were also enlarged through additions placed at the beginning. Genesis 1 155. For a review of recent work on Isaiah see H. G. M. Williamson, The Book Called Isaiah: Deutero-Isaiah's Role in Composition and Redaction (Oxford: Clarendon, 1994), pp. 1-29. 156. Andre LaCocque, Daniel in His Time (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1988), pp. 5 9 - 8 1 . 157. Otto Eissfeldt, The Old Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), pp. 4 3 4 - 4 0 . 158. See J. M. T. Barton, in The Apocryphal Old Testament, ed. H. F. D. Sparks (Oxford: Clarendon, 1984), pp. 779-80. 159. See R. H. Charles, "The Martyrdom of Isaiah," in Pseudeprigrapha, vol. 2 of The Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament in English, ed. R. H. Charles (Oxford: Clarendon, 1913), pp. 168-70. 160. This is the standard view; but see Claus Westermann, The Roots of Wisdom: The Oldest Proverbs of Israel and Other Peoples (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1994). The Compositional History of Q 39 is generally reckoned a late preface from the P source.161 Judg 1:1-2:5, the introduction to the entire book, is a secondary introduction. 162 Susanna is placed before Daniel in Theodotian as well as in the Old Latin, Coptic, and Arabic versions. Whoever put together Baruch introduced the already existing sources with Bar 1:1(3)-14.163 To judge both by content and the Qumran manuscripts, IQS 1-4 circulated apart from the rest of IQS; that is, it is not the original introduction but was affixed only later.164 Someone prefaced an epitome of Jason of Cyrene to the Maccabeans with two epistles to give us the work now known as 2 Maccabees. 165 Those who believe there was an extensive pre-Markan passion narrative may think of Mark as having supplied a long introduction to that. The Apocalypse of Sedrach commences with a sermon composed by a Christian, which was made the introduction to the entire book. 166 The situation may be similar in the Apocalypse of Elijah, although there the sermon in chapter 1 may have been Jewish (to which Christian insertions were later added). 167 Given the frequency with which literature was expanded either by adding materials to the beginning or to the end, it is no surprise that some books were enlarged by both techniques — exactly what I postulate for Q. There is wide agreement, for instance, that Deut 4:44-28:68 was expanded through additions at the beginning and end.168 And although the compositional history of Judges is highly complex and disputed, it does at least seem that a form of the book circulated without 1:1-2:5 and chapters 16 or 17-21. 1 6 9 IQS appears to have grown out from the original core in columns 8 and 9.170 The Greek Daniel has secondary stories at both beginning and end (Susanna, Bel and the Dragon). Second Peter is an updating of Jude: the pseudonymous writer surrounded Jude 4-16 (= 2 Peter 2) with words on holiness (2 Peter 1) and teaching on eschatology (2 Peter 3). Fourth Ezra was expanded first by the addition of 2 Esdr 1:1-2:48 at the beginning and then later 161. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, WBC, vol. 1 (Waco, Tex.: Word, 1987), p. xxxi. 162. See Childs, Introduction, pp. 256-59. 163. Eissfeldt, Old Testament, p. 594. 164. Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, "La Genese litteraire de la regie de la communaute," RB 76 (1969): 528-49. 165. The original opening of the abridger appears in 2 Mace 2:19. Cf. Jonathan A. Goldstein, II Maccabees, AB, vol. 41A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), pp. 2 4 - 2 7 . 166. Cf. S. Agourides, in Apocalyptic Literature and Testaments, vol. 1 of The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1983), p. 606. 167. See O. S. Wintermute, in Charlesworth, Apocalyptic Literature, pp. 721-22. 168. Cf. Moshe Weinfeld, Deuteronomy 1-11, AB, vol. 5 (New York: Doubleday, 1991), pp. 9-13. 169. See Robert G. Bolmg, Judges, AB, vol. 6A (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1975), pp. 2 9 - 3 8 . 170. See Murphy-O'Connor, as in n. 164. 40 The Compositional History of Q by the addition of 2 Esdr 15:1-16:78 at the end (both appear in the Latin but not in the Oriental versions). Barnabas surrounds the preexisting doctrine of the two ways (chapters 18-20) with chapters 1-17 and 21. 1 7 1 The Didache seems to have been put together by someone who interpolated into a Jewish text on the two ways 172 materials from the Jesus tradition near the beginning (1:3-6) and then, after reproducing that traditional text, added a church order and an apocalypse (chapters 7-16 ).173 And the Sophia of Jesus Christ appears to have rewritten Nag Hammadi's Eugnostos the Blessed, or the source upon which this latter is based, and in so doing supplied new matter at the beginning and end.174 The three-stage compositional history of Q postulated herein holds that the Sayings Source was expanded not only by placing material at its beginning and end but also by the secondary intrusion of Q 11:1452 into the old missionary section of Q 1 . I need only remind readers that the phenomenon of large interpolations in the middle of documents is as well attested as expansions placed in front or after a book. Suffice it to mention, as relatively uncontroversial examples, the additions to Esther, Isaiah's apocalypse (24-27), the Song of the Three Young Men, the parables of Enoch, Jn 7:53-8:11, and Apoc. Abr. 19:3-13. 1 7 5 It should be emphasized that while a relatively simple three-stage history is envisaged, I do not exclude the possibility that some verses or phrases I have assigned to Q 1 may be later additions, from the author of Q 2 or Q 3 , or that some of the verses or phrases I have assigned to Q 2 might be from Q 3 . In other words, I am not insisting that those responsible for Q 2 and Q 3 did nothing other than add large blocks. They are indeed likely to have retouched the text in smaller ways. For example, Q 10:2 and 10:7b just might, as Kloppenborg has urged, be addressed not to itinerants but to their supporters and so be secondary additions (from Q 2 or Q 3 ). I have myself urged that Q 10:13-15, which coheres so well with the judgment materials in Q 3 , should probably be attributed not to Q 1 but to Q 3 . In other cases, however, one can hardly be confident. 171. For a review of the discussion see Klaus Wengst, Tradition und Theologie des Barnabasbriefes (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971), pp. 5-70. 172. Cf. 1QS 3:13-4:14 and Barnabas 18-20. 173. See Kurt Niederwimmer, Die Didache (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1989), pp. 64-78. 174. See Douglas M. Parrott, in The Nag Hammadi Library, ed. James M. Robinson (New York: Harper & Row, 1977), pp. 206-28. 175. 2 Cor 6:14-7:1 is more controversial, but it too appears to be an intrusion. On the whole subject of interpolations it is still profitable to read James Moffatt, The Historical New Testament (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1901), pp. 615-708. The Compositional History of Q 41 THE IMPLICATIONS FOR Q ' S GENRE There has been much recent discussion regarding Q's genre. The primary alternatives have been set forth by Kloppenborg and Sato. The former, following James Robinson, classifies Q as a sapiential sayings collection. The latter, on the other hand, thinks of it as prophetic. There is, of course, something to be said for each position. That both Kloppenborg and Sato can make good cases should foster reflection. Certainly no one would dream of including Proverbs among the latter prophets, or of classifying Jeremiah among Jewish wisdom literature. How can it be that Q looks like two things at once? The first observation is that many ancient writings mix genres. What exactly is the book of Job? It seems to be several things at the same time. 176 The Qumran Pesharim are in some respects like rabbinic midrash and in other respects like apocalyptic literature. 177 The Damascus Document contains general exhortations and interpretations of the Bible in the context of a retrospective on Israel's history, but then ends with a list of statutes. Is anything else quite like it? Both Revelation and 2 Baruch are apocalypses with long epistolary sections. The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs can be classified as apocalyptic literature or as a collection of testaments, but the sapiential features are strong. The Gospel of Matthew has been thought to be a sort of omnibus of genres: apocalypse (chapters 24-25), community rule (chapter 18), catechism (perhaps the Sermon on the Mount), cult aetiology (the institution of the Lord's Supper), and so forth.178 Philostratus's Vita Apolloni supplies yet one more example of a book that is rather hard to classify because it seems to be more than one thing. 179 Might Q not be something similar? The question is the more forceful when one takes into account Q's compositional history. Q 1 , directed towards missionaries, was neither a collection of proverbs nor a collection of prophetic oracles. It was rather a book of directions and encouragement for itinerants. But, as readers of the works of Kloppenborg and Sato know, there are both sapiential and prophetic features in the sayings themselves. There is further resemblance with the rules of Qumran insofar as one finds concrete instruction for a special way of life. 176. Cf. Roland E. Murphy, Wisdom Literature: Job, Proverbs, Ruth, Lamentations, Ecclesiastes, and Esther (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1981), pp. 16-20. 177. See Maurya P. Horgan, Pesharim: Qumran Interpretations of Biblical Books, CBQMS, vol. 8 (Washington: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1979), pp. 24959. 178. Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 1, pp. 2-3. 179. Cf. G. Petzke, Die Traditionen iiber Apollonius von Tyana und das Neue Testament (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1970), p. 60. 42 The Compositional History of Q Q 2 adds to this last resemblance because it contains a community rule (16:18, on divorce). But Q 2 even more contributes sapiential material (e.g., 12:58-59; 14:34-35; 16:13), and its focus upon paraenesis reminds us of the wisdom tradition. So Q 2 enhances Q's resemblance to wisdom literature. Q2's paraenesis, however, is typically wedded to the prospect of eschatological judgment: one must watch, enter in by the narrow door, and take up a cross or risk being cast out of the kingdom. There is accordingly much in Q 2 to which Sato can appeal in his case for Q as a prophetic document. Q2's expansion of Q also reminds one of the testament genre. 180 Q 2 has parables in which Jesus speaks of his coming. 181 But Jesus cannot come without first going away. So the paraenesis of Q 2 is for the time during which the Lord is absent (cf. 12:45: "my master delays"). In other words, Jesus is telling his disciples what to do after he is gone — which is exactly what one finds in Jewish testaments, in which, as in Q, there is so often a mixture of sapiential and eschatological materials. Sapiential and eschatological elements also typify Q 3 . But Q 3 takes us a step towards what we may call biography. Not only are there lengthier stories about Jesus (Q 4:1-13; 7:1-10), but there is also a sense of chronology. Material is less connected by catchword or ordered by topic than it is put in a chronological sequence. John, who looks forward to the coming one, speaks first. Then the temptation narrative, which shows Jesus overcoming temptation and acting as he himself will demand that others act, legitimizes him. After overcoming trial he then delivers a sermon, after which he heals someone, after which he addresses the disciples of John the Baptist, after which he speaks to the crowds. Hans Dieter Betz has called Q "a kind of collection of collections." 182 He is right, and it is Q's composite nature which makes it so difficult to categorize the work. 183 The authors of Q1 and Q 2 and Q 3 did not have exactly the same audience in view or the same goals in mind, so it is hardly surprising that Q cannot be easily categorized. One should be content to say that it, like other old Jewish books, mixes genres. 180. Ernst Bammel, "Das Ende von Q," in Verborum Veritas: Festschrift fur Gustav Stahlin zum 70. Geburtstag, ed. O. Bocher and K. Haacker (Wuppertal: Rolf Brockhaus, 1970), pp. 39-50, suggested that Q in its entirety might reflect the form of a testament. This goes too far, and Bammel has not won support for his position. But I confine my suggestion to Q 2 , that is, the last portion of Q. 181. 1 2 : 3 6 , 3 7 , 3 8 , 3 9 , 4 3 , 4 5 , 4 6 . 182. Hans Dieter Betz, "The Sermon on the Mount and Q," in Goehring et al., Gospel Origins and Christian Beginnings, p. 34. 183. Cf. John P. Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, vol. 2 of A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, ABRL (New York: Doubleday, 1994), pp. 179-81. Walter Schmithals, Einleitung in die drei ersten Evangelien (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1985), p. 229, speaks of Q's Mischform. The Compositional History of Q 43 THE IMPLICATIONS FOR Q ' S PLACE WITHIN EARLY CHRISTIANITY Much recent discussion of Q has focused on what it does not say or contain. Q does not have a passion narrative. It does not view Jesus' death as salvific. It does not tell us that Jesus rose from the dead. While all this could be explained by the simple proposition that Q contained mostly words of Jesus, who did not much speak, if at all, about his death and resurrection,184 there are other possibilities. One is that Q reveals a community with "another 'kerygma' — one which had no special place for the death of Jesus and which, unlike Paul, did not view the vindication of Jesus through the apocalyptic metaphor of resurrection." 185 The most vigorous statement of this position has come from Burton Mack. His tendency is to argue that if a particular belief did not appear in Q, that belief did not appear in the Q community, or, if known, was unimportant to its members. This allows him to propose that the people behind Q "did not think of Jesus as a messiah or the Christ.186 They did not take his teachings as an indictment of Judaism. They did not regard his death as a divine, tragic, or saving event. And they did not imagine that he had been raised from the dead to rule over a transformed world." 187 This is hazardous reasoning. At best these are possibilities, not established facts. What independent evidence is there for the existence of such people in the earliest church? Where are the Q people in Paul or Acts?188 One could just as well contend, without fear of direct refutation, that the author of Pseudo-Philo thought all history after David theologically inconsequential because the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum ends with the death of Saul, or that those Dead Sea Scrolls which fail to name the 184. So Martin Hengel, "Kerygma oder Geschichte? Zur Problematik einer falschen Alternative in der Synoptikerforschung aufgezeigt an Hand einiger neuer Monographien," ThQ 101 (1971): 334. 185. Leif E. Vaage and John S. Kloppenborg, "Early Christianity, Q, and Jesus: The Sayings Gospel and Method in the Study of Christian Origins," in Kloppenborg and Vaage, Early Christianity, Q, and Jesus, p. 6. 186. But even in Mark, Jesus explicitly calls himself "Christ" only once, in 9:41. In Matthew he does this only in 23:10, in Luke not at all. (At Caesarea Philippi and at the trial before the Sanhedrin others bring up the title, and Jesus himself does not speak it.) Surely the failure of Jesus in Q to call himself "Christ" is a feature of the Jesus tradition in general, not some telling fact about the Q people in particular. 187. Lost Gospel, p. 4. 188. According to Koester, Gospels, p. 165, "it is evident now" that the opponents of 1 Corinthians 1-4, the opponents of the Gospel of John, the Gospel of Thomas, and the Dialogue of the Savior all had a theology "that had no relationship to the kerygma of the cross and resurrection." But the identity and theology of Paul's opponents in 1 Corinthians 1-4 is surely not "evident" (or else there would not be so much debate on the subject); and the other sources Koester cites are all on the way to Gnosticism and probably have nothing to tell us about the very earliest Christians. 44 The Compositional History of Q Teacher of Righteousness were composed by sectarians who disputed his prominence, or — to carry things to absurdity — that the group responsible for producing the infancy traditions behind Matthew 1-2 was uninterested in the adult Jesus. Why treat Q as a sort of systematic theology, or as an exhaustive statement of someone's christological beliefs? According to Ben Witherington, "Arguing there was a Q community is rather like arguing there was a Proverbs community, or an Aboth community." 189 If by this he means that Q cannot be taken as the full expression of what a particular community was all about one must concur.190 Certainly the people who used Q had important rituals and a community organization; but about them Q tells us nothing. 191 Leander Keck has wisely written, "Given the occasional character of the NT texts, as well as their several genres and functions, a text's christology is but a partial expression of what a writer thought about Jesus' identity and significance."192 The argument from silence can also be countered by examination of Q's compositional history, which gives no reason to think that any contributor to Q intended to state a full range of important theological convictions. A passion narrative would have no place at all in Q 1 , a set of instructions to missionaries. Nor would it belong with the paraenetic material of Q 2 . 193 The paraenetical sections of Paul's epistles do not ground themselves in the passion and resurrection of Jesus, nor do the synoptic passion narratives as we have them contain much paraenetical material. The interests of Q 3 — including John the Baptist (Q 3:7-9, 16-17), Jesus as miracle worker (Q 4:1-13; 7:1-10), paraenesis (Q 6:20-49), and polemic against Jewish exorcists, scribes, and Pharisees (Q 11:14-52) — also did not lend themselves to including sayings or narratives about Jesus' death or resurrection. This also explains the absence of the Lord's Supper. There are other things to keep in mind. The arguments of Mack and like-minded others are indeed arguments from silence. There is in Q no explicit denial of the atoning value of Jesus' death, no explicit rejection of his resurrection from the dead, no explicit rejection of Jesus' status 189. Sage, p. 211. 190. Martin Hengel, "Aufgaben der neutestamentlich Wissenschaft," NTS 40 (1994): 336, seemingly doubts that we should speak of a Q community at all. Cf. J. Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, p. 179: "I do not see any historical proof that one and only one community either created, gathered, or carried the Q tradition through early Christianity until it wound up in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. On the contrary, the very fact that Q apparently existed and functioned for some time in each of these evangelists' churches before it was absorbed into their Gospels tells against this idea of one Q community." 191. Cf. Harold W. Attridge, "Reflections on Research into Q," in Kloppenborg and Vaage, Early Christianity, Q, and Jesus, pp. 228-29. 192. "Toward the Renewal of New Testament Christology," NTS 32 (1986): 371. 193. Q does, however, contain the saying on bearing one's own cross, and this might presuppose the image of Jesus carrying his cross: Q 14:27. The Compositional History of Q 45 as the Messiah. Moreover, Q was taken up by both Matthew and Luke, who held the beliefs that Mack denies to the Q community.194 Paul also used Q, or at least traditions taken up into it.195 But if Q was produced by a community with beliefs so opposed to those of Matthew and Luke, how did they come to embrace it as an authoritative source? One suspects that they accepted it because they thought it congruent with their own convictions. In any case we know that Q circulated among some people who treasured passion narratives. 196 The truth is that while Q may omit some things, it does not include anything really at odds with what Matthew or Luke held dear. Almost everything in Q—John's testimony to Jesus, Jesus' victory over the devil and temptation, the imperative to love instead of taking revenge, the radical call to discipleship, the mission charge, the belief in Jesus as Son of God and revealer of the Father, Jesus' success as exorcist, polemic against Jewish leaders, and so forth — is found elsewhere in early Christian literature. 197 This makes the argument from silence hard to accept. If in the past we have tended to find too much unity in the early church, perhaps now, as citizens of a pluralistic and fragmented society, we are going too far the other way.198 One may even wonder whether for its first decade or two early Christianity was not the complex thing modern scholars imagine but instead a very small movement with a few recognizable leaders who, as Paul tells us, agreed on quite a bit. Has anyone noticed that the traditions unique to Matthew, the so-called M materials, have nothing to say about Jesus' death and resurrection? Should we then reconstruct another community which had no place for a kerygma like Paul's? But then this material is universally thought of as coming from Matthew's own community, which evidently used the Markan passion narrative. The same point can be made with regard to most of Luke's special traditions. And Mark, despite its focus on the death and vindication of Jesus, has very little to say about the atoning value of Jesus' death and resurrection. Even the Markan passion narrative contains only a single text (14:24) interpreting Jesus' death as salvific.199 "When Matthew, Mark and Luke rarely present di194. Luz, Matthew 1-7, p. 83, has argued that the Q community became the Matthean community, or that the Matthean community was founded by "the wandering messengers and prophets of the Son of man of the Sayings Source." 195. See below, pp. 54-60. 196. And who also treasured miracle stories, another area in which Q comes up a bit short. 197. See further Meadors, Jesus, passim. 198. See Arland J. Hultgren, The Rise of Normative Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1994). 199. Cf. Philipp Vielhauer, Geschichte der urchristlichen Literatur: Einleitung in das Neue Testament, die Apokryphen und die Apostolischen Vater (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1975), pp. 326-28. 46 The Compositional History of Q rect references to the atoning benefits of Jesus' death, should we find it remarkable that Q is silent on the same issue?" 200 We know for a fact that Q's authors believed in much that Q does not tell us about. Q quotes from and alludes to the First Testament. It would be strange to suppose that the contributors to Q regarded as authoritative only those books which their work refers to. Does Q not presuppose the authority of the entire Tanak and quote only what furthers its immediate agenda? Q also fails to tell us that God created the world, or that God gave the commandments to Moses, or that God made a covenant with David — and yet we should still think that these were things the authors no doubt believed, indeed things that were for them foundational. Also instructive is Q 7:18-23. Here Jesus says that through his ministry the blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, and the dead are raised. Yet Q (unlike Mark) contains no account of such things. Surely we should imagine that Q presupposes knowledge of miracle stories that it does not recount. Otherwise Q 7:18-23 would do nothing but raise questions. At all three of Q's stages, the contributors were no more interested in telling us everything they knew about Jesus, or everything they thought important about him, than they were in telling us everything they knew and thought important about God or the Bible. They took up traditions which furthered their immediate agendas, and nothing more. They had no intention of passing on every Christian tradition they had received, no intention of saying everything they believed about God or Jesus. One recalls that even Romans, which is as close to a systematic presentation as Paul ever got, fails to discuss the Lord's Supper or the foundational tradition of 1 Cor 15:3ff. No less instructive is the peculiar circumstance that the person who wrote the so-called Gospel of Luke also wrote another book, Acts, in which the teaching of Jesus plays a very small role. 201 Obviously even a very long book need not reflect the full range of an author's interests or address every matter of import to that author's community. 200. Edward P. Meadors, "The Orthodoxy of the 'Q' Sayings of Jesus," TynBull 43 (1992): 239. The entire article is quite instructive. He effectively demonstrates that there is little cause to suppose that Q interpreted Jesus' death solely in Deuteronomic terms. According to Jacobson, First Gospel, p. 74, "Jesus' death would be understood not as a salvific act but as evidence of Israel's continuing impenitence." But the two things could certainly have gone together. 201. See esp. C. K. Barrett, "Sayings of Jesus in the Acts of the Apostles," in A cause de I'fcvangile. Etudes sur les Synoptiques et les Actes offertes au P. Jacques Dupont, LD, vol. 123 (Paris: Cerf, 1985), pp. 681-708. The Compositional History of Q 47 THE QUESTION OF ORIGINAL LANGUAGE Kloppenborg, following and building upon Nigel Turner's work, has argued that "the balance of the linguistic evidence does not favor a translation hypothesis." 202 Q, that is, was not an Aramaic but a Greek document. Both Kloppenborg and Turner, however, examine Q in its entirety. What happens when one instead looks at the three stages Q appears to have gone through, at Q 1 and at Q 1 + Q 2 and at Q 1 + Q 2 + Q3? Q 1 + Q 2 + Q 3 , which came to Matthew and Luke in Greek, was probably put together in Greek. The quotations from Deut 8:3; Ps 91:11; and Deut 6:16 in the temptation narrative are all derived from the LXX; 203 and the citation in 13:35 agrees exactly with Ps 117:26 (LXX). Moreover, as we shall see in chapter 2, although the Sermon on the Plain (hereafter SP) incorporates an old source (6:27-38) that gives every appearance of being translation Greek, it is surrounded by materials which do not give that appearance. This only reinforces the inference drawn from Q3's use of the LXX: the compiler of Q 1 + Q 2 + Q 3 was working in Greek. We also have reason to believe that Q 1 + Q 2 was composed as a Greek text. For one thing, Q 17:27 (a%pi f\q fyiepac; eiaf}A,0ev Ncoe eiq xf]v Kifkoxov) borrows the language of Gen 7:7 in the LXX (eiof|X,9ev 8e Ncoe... ek, xf)V KIBCOTOV).204 For another, the strings of Greek catchwords strongly point to composition in Greek (although it remains theoretically possible that a translator sought to reproduce the catchword links in a Semitic document). But what of Q1? Here artificial Greek catchwords are not the key to the order of the pericopae, and there seems to be no trace of the LXX. It is true that Q 1 never explicitly cites the OT. But 9:58 probably alludes to Psalm 8,205 and Q 12:8-9 probably depends upon Daniel 7, 206 and in neither case is the LXX as opposed to the MT clearly presupposed. Further, the allusions to 1 Kgs 19:19-21 in Q 9:57-62 and to Isa 14:13-15 in Q 10:15 show no significant contact with the LXX, and the same is true of the general references to "prophets and kings" in Q 10:23-24 and to Solomon in glory in 12:27. 207 202. Kloppenborg, Formation, pp. 59-64; Nigel Turner, "Q in Recent Thought," ExpT 80 (1969): 324-28. 203. Q 4:4 = Deut 8:3 (LXX); Q 4:10-11 = Ps 90:11-12 (LXX); Q 4:12 = Deut 6:16 (LXX; here against the MT). Cf. also Q 6:21 with Isa 61:2 (LXX) and Q 7:27 with Exod 23:20 (LXX). 204. But this is suggestive, not demonstrative; for the translator of a Semitic text might naturally assimilate scriptural citations or allusions to the LXX. 205. See M. H. Smith, "No Place for a Son of Man," Forum 4, no. 4 (1988): 83-107. 206. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 2, pp. 214-15. 207. For the possibility that 11:3 alludes to Exod 16:4 (MT), see ibid., vol. 1, pp. 608-9. 48 The Compositional History of Q Perhaps the most objective means of determining the original language of Q 1 is the work of Raymond A. Martin. In his book, Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels,208 Martin has established that several syntactical features tend to occur at certain rates in both original Greek and translation Greek.209 While his grid of seventeen criteria is hardly an infallible means for detecting whether or not a Semitic original lies behind a particular Greek document or portion of that document, it is at the least suggestive. Now Martin has examined most of the Q materials in their Matthean and Lukan wording, with this result for our purposes: • 70 percent of the units assigned to Q 1 herein qualify as translation Greek in either Matthew or Luke210 • 58 percent of the units assigned to Q 2 herein qualify as translation Greek in either Matthew or Luke211 • 60 percent of the units assigned to Q 3 herein qualify as translation Greek in either Matthew or Luke212 Clearly Q in its entirety was strongly Semitic and must in part, and at all three stages, have drawn upon materials that were originally composed in Aramaic. 213 But it is precisely Q 1 that seems to have the strongest Semitic flavor. Moreover, only two passages in Q 1 do not, according to Martin's statistics, qualify as translation Greek, and both of these nonetheless, contain Semitic features.214 So although one can hardly 208. Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1987. 209. For full explanation see his earlier work, Syntactical Evidence of Semitic Sources in Greek Documents (Cambridge, Mass.: Society of Biblical Literature, 1974), pp. 1-86. Martin has responded to his critics in Syntax Criticism of Johannine Literature, the Catholic Epistles, and the Gospel Passion Accounts (Lewiston, N.Y.: Edwin Mellen Press, 1989), pp. 163-81. 210. From Q 1 Martin examines the following (TR = translation Greek): 9:57-60; 1 0 : 3 12 (TR); 10:21-24 (TR); 11:2-4 (TR); 11:9-13 (TR); 12:2-9 (TR); and 12:22-32. If Q 22:28-30 were included (see p. 35) the percentage would rise to 75. 211. Martin examines the following from Q 2 : 12:33-34 (TR), 35-38 (TR), 3 9 - 4 0 (TR), 42-46 (TR), 54-56, 58-59; 14:15-24 (TR), 26-27; 15:4-7 (TR); 17:1-2 (TR); 19:11-27 (TR). He does not review 12:49-53; 13:18-21; 13:23-30; 14:11, 3 4 - 3 5 ; 16:13 (at least in isolation), 16, 17, 18; 17:3-4, 6, 22-37. 212. Martin examines the following from Q 3 : 3:7-9; 4:1-13 (TR); 6:20-23, 27-31 (TR), 32-36 (TR), 37-38 + 3 9 - 4 0 , 41-42 (TR), 4 3 - 4 5 , 47-49; 7:1-10 (TR), 18-23 (TR), 24-35; 10:13-15 (TR); 11:14-23 (TR), 24-26, 29-32 (TR), 33-35 (TR), 3 9 - 4 4 (TR), 45-51 (TR); 13:34-35. He does not review 3:16-17. Note that three of these units come from the old source behind the SP. 213. Martin observes that Matthew and Luke are generally less Semitic than Mark in the triple tradition; that is, Matthew and Luke rewrote Markan material to make it less Semitic. This tendency implies that the Greek text of Q was even more Semitic than the Matthean and Lukan passages from the double tradition that Martin analyzes. 214. On 9:57-60 see the chart on p. 100 of Syntax Criticism of the Synoptic Gospels, and on 12:22-32, p. 101. For further reflections on the possible Aramaic background of the latter see Matthew Black, An Aramaic Approach to the Gospels and Acts, 3d ed. (Oxford: Clarendon, 1967), pp. 178-79. The Compositional History of Q 49 prove the point, there is something to be said for the possibility that Q 1 was originally a collection of Aramaic traditions. If this possibility is accepted, whether Q' came to the author of Q 2 as a text already translated into Greek, or whether that author himself or herself translated Q 1 , is a question we cannot answer. Q's DATE AND PLACE OF COMPOSITION The latest possible date for Q 1 + Q 2 + Q 3 is dictated by its having been known to the authors of Luke and Matthew, who presumably wrote their Gospels during the 80s or 90s of the first common century.215 So Q could not have been produced later than the 70s. If one held that Q influenced Mark 216 one could push the date back further, for Mark was known to both Matthew and Luke and was evidently written shortly before or after the Jewish War.217 But those who have found Mark to be independent of Q probably have the better of the argument. 218 Paul Hoffmann has recently submitted that Q may have been written as late as ca. 70 C.E. 219 Such a late date would be consistent with the identification of the Zacharias of Q 11:51 with the man in Josephus (Bell. 4:334-44) who was active during the Jewish War. But the reference is surely not to this figure but to 1 Chr 24:20-22. 2 2 0 The truth is that Q seems to exhibit "a total unawareness of the events of the war against Rome in 66-73 C.E." 2 2 1 A much earlier date for Q would be established if one were able to place James in the 50s and also accept P. J. Hartin's case that the author of James knew Q. 222 But one can hardly be confident about the dating 215. For Matthew see Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 1, pp. 127-38. For Luke see Joseph A. Fitzmyer, The Gospel according to Luke, vol. 1 (New York: Doubleday, 1981), pp. 53-57. 216. See now esp. Harry T. Fleddermann, Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts, BETL, vol. 122 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1995). 217. Joel Marcus, "The Jewish War and the Site im Leben of Mark," JBL 113 (1992): 441-62. 218. See F. Neirynck's "Assessment" of Fleddermann in Mark and Q, pp. 263-303, and the important work of Laufen, Die Doppeliiberlieferungen; also Joachim Schilling, Studien turn Verhdltnis von Logienquelle und Markusevangelium, FB, vol. 65 (Wiirzburg: Echter, 1991); C. M. Tuckett, "Mark and Q," in Focant, Synoptic Gospels, pp. 149-75; and Ismo Dunderberg, "Q and the Beginning of Mark," NTS 41 (1995): 501-11. 219. "The Redaction of Q." Mack offers a similarly late date for his Q 3 ; cf. Lost Gospel, pp. 2 0 4 - 5 . 220. Discussion in Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 3, pp. 318-19. 221. Catchpole, "The Question of Q," p. 36. On Hoffmann see further Tuckett, Q, pp. 357, 361-64. 222. James and the Sayings of Q, JSNTSS, vol. 47 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991). Hartin finds parallels in James to texts in all three of Q's stages as postulated herein. 50 The Compositional History of Q of James. 223 No less important, it is not clear that Hartin has made his case regarding James's relationship to Q. 224 According to David Catchpole, Q 17:23-24 (from my Q2) suggests "a timing for Q sometime after 45 C.E." 2 2 5 This warns against those who say, " 'Look there! or 'Look here!' Do not go, nor follow after them." His assumption appears to be that Q 17:23-24 adverts to the socalled sign prophets known from Josephus. Theudas, a self-proclaimed prophet who promised to divide the Jordan, was active during the procuratorship of Cuspius Fadus (44-48 C.E.; cf. Ant. 20:97-99; Acts 5:36). Within the procuratorship of Felix (52-60 C.E.) were the Egyptian prophet, who sought to make the walls of Jerusalem fall down (Ant. 20:169-72; Bell. 2:261-63; Acts 21:38), and certain unnamed men who enticed people into the desert with the promise of "marvels and signs" (Ant. 20:167-68; Bell. 2:259). Others with similar expectations were active during the time of Porcius Festus (60-62 C.E.; Ant. 20:188) and right before the destruction of the temple (Bell. 6:285-86). Catchpole is probably right in holding that Q 17:23-24 reflects knowledge of certain Jewish sign prophets. At the same time, there is no reason to believe we have a record of all who said "Look here!" or "Look there!" 226 and we know of at least one who was active in 36 C.E. Josephus (Ant. 18:85-87) tells of a Samaritan who led a mob to Mount Gerizim, where he declared he would reveal the sacred vessels Moses had deposited. He evidently made himself out to be the prophet like Moses of Deut 18:15, 18. 227 So 17:23-24 hardly proves that Q was written after 45 C.E. Gerd Theissen has also attempted to date Q. 228 His argument centers around the temptation narrative, in which Jesus is tempted to turn stones into bread, to jump off the temple, and to worship Satan. The first two temptations may be linked with Mark's temptation narrative, where Jesus is served by angels (Q cites Ps 91:11: "He will give his angels charge of you") and where it may be assumed that Jesus fasts (but this is not explicit). The temptation to worship Satan, however, has no parallel in Mk 1:12-13. Where did it come from? 223. Kiimmel, Introduction, pp. 411-14, speaks for many when he dates James "toward the end of the first century." 224. I hope to review the evidence in a forthcoming publication. For additional discussion see Peter H. Davids, "James and Jesus," in The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, vol. 5 of Gospel Perspectives, ed. David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT, 1985), pp. 63-84. 225. "The Question of Q," p. 39. 226. Cf. N. H. Taylor, "Palestinian Christianity and the Caligula Crisis," JSNT 61 (1996): 111-13; 62 (1996): 25-26. 227. Marilyn F. Collins, "The Hidden Vessels in Samaritan Tradition," JJS 3 (1972): 97-116. 228. The Gospels in Context: Social and Political History in the Synoptic Tradition (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1991), pp. 203-34. The Compositional History of Q 51 The third temptation involves three elements: prostration before the ruler of the earth, the claim to universal authority, and the conflict with the worship of God. For Theissen, these three elements have as their background events during the reign of Gaius Caligula. It was Caligula who introduced proskynesis into his ceremonies, and it was Caligula, the ruler of the world, who ordered an effigy of himself to be set up in the Jerusalem temple. The third temptation then reflects the tribulations of Caligula's reign, when Jews chose between idolatry and the God of Israel. Q must have been written later. It is in favor of Theissen's thesis that, in Revelation 13, proskynesis before Satan should indeed be associated with emperor worship. Still, it is not at all necessary to refer to Caligula in explaining Q's final temptation. Q 4:1-13 is much indebted to exodus traditions. Deut 8:3 is quoted in Q 4:4, Deut 6:16 in Q 4:10, and Deut 6:13 in Q 4:8. Clearly we are working here with a haggadic tale much informed by Scripture. As Israel entered the desert to suffer a time of testing, so too Jesus, whose forty days is the typological equivalent of Israel's forty years of wandering. Just as Israel was tempted by hunger (Exod 16:2-8), was tempted to put God to the test (Exod 17:1-3; cf. Deut 6:16), and was tempted to idolatry (Exodus 32), so too Jesus. In this interpretation, the temptation to worship the devil is the typological correlate of the making of the golden calf: the people "worshiped" (Exod 32:8) a false god while Moses was on the mountain, and in like manner Jesus, on a mountain, was tempted to worship Satan. The parallel is not exact, but it is close enough. An idol was a god, and gods were demons, so idolatry was demon worship. 229 Further, idolatry was sometimes represented as the worship of Satan. Thus in 2 Kings 21 Manasseh commits idolatry, and Asc. Isa. 2:1-7 equates that idolatry with worship of Satan. Note also that, according to Pirke R. Eliezer 45, Samma'el was in the golden calf, and that when a temple of idols is destroyed in the Testament of Job 2 - 6 , Satan soon appears to avenge himself. Moreover, the notion of Satan's universal rule need not be connected with Roman sovereignty. That Satan was "the ruler of this world" (Jn 12:31) or "the god of this world" (2 Cor 4:4) was a common conviction. In short, then, Theissen's attempt to associate Q's temptation with Caligula's reign is not necessary. His thesis cannot be disproved, but one hesitates to accept it because the haggadic imagination could have produced the third temptation if Caligula had never existed. The literary history does not require being correlated with an external political history. Once again, then, the date of Q has not been determined. It is in truth impossible to have great confidence regarding the date when and place where Q 1 + Q 2 + Q 3 or its forerunners first saw the light 229. Cf. Deut 32:17; Ps 106:37-38; 1 Enoch 99:7. 52 The Compositional History of Q of day. Still, a few tentative conjectures may be offered. Q 1 probably appeared in the 30s, Q 1 + Q 2 + Q 3 in the 40s or 50s, and Q 2 , necessarily, between them. Further, all three were probably produced in Palestine. Q 1 presumably goes back to a very early time indeed. It primarily consists, as shall be observed below, of sayings generally reckoned to go back to Jesus, and it represents a relatively undeveloped stage of Christian reflection. It was plausibly composed not long after there came to be Christian missionaries who had themselves not known or worked with Jesus. It is these especially who would have benefited from the instructions for and encouragement of itinerants in Q \ The early date and the absence of any hint of the Gentile mission are consistent with a Palestinian origin, and such an origin is also consistent with the possibility, already raised, that Q 1 was first composed in Aramaic. The only place named is Sodom (10:12). Regarding the origin of Q 1 + Q 2 , its concern with the delay of the parousia is of some help. Those who first proclaimed Jesus' resurrection did so in the conviction that it was only one act in an ongoing eschatological drama. With Jesus' suffering, death, and resurrection the last things had truly begun to arrive. So believers did not expect the world to keep on its old course for long, and it would only have taken perhaps a few months, at the most a few years, before believers began to wonder why God had not yet wrapped things up. 230 One nonetheless detects behind such passages as Q 12:35-48 not just intellectual questioning but the possibility of a disillusionment serious enough to lead to moral lapse — something altogether absent from Q 1 . Surely this takes us a few years beyond Q 1 , in which the near end is not argued for but confidently assumed. As for the local origin of Q 1 + Q 2 , three observations are congruent with a Palestinian provenance. First, Q 13:29, as argued in chapter 8, presupposes not only that Israel and its capital are the center of the world but seemingly addresses people who live in that center. Second, in Lk 12:54-56, which may preserve the text of Q, 231 clouds in the west are a sign of rain, and winds from the south herald heat. The perspective is Palestinian: clouds from the west are from the sea and so bring rain, winds from the south are from the desert and so presage heat. Third, the warning of Q 17:23 probably envisages sign prophets of the sort we learn of from Josephus, and they were, to our knowledge, concentrated in Palestine.232 230. See my work, The End of the Ages Has Come (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), pp. 142-62. 231. See above, n. 112. 232. See above, p. 50. The Compositional History of Q 53 Turning finally to Q 1 + Q 2 + Q 3 , its Palestinian origin seems as likely as the Palestinian origin of its predecessors. (1) Q 3 refers to five places in Palestine: Capernaum (Q 7:2), Chorazin (Q 10:13), Bethsaida (Q 10:13), Capernaum (Q 10:15), and Jerusalem (Q 13:34). Tyre and Sidon are also mentioned, in Q 10:13; but these serve as illustrations from the Bible. Q 3 also contains the only two references in Q to the Jerusalem temple (4:1-13; 11:51). (2) Even if the mission to Gentiles is evidenced (which is doubtful), the text does little or nothing to encourage that mission.233 Moreover, "disparaging comments on both the self-interest with which they [Gentiles] show love (Q 6:32-33, with the original Q 'tax collectors... gentiles' preserved by Matthew) and also the materialistic preoccupation they have with food and clothing (Q 12:30a), with the common theme of needing to behave better than they do, are scarcely the natural reflex of a community which possesses, and is pleased to possess, mixed membership." 234 In other words, we are looking at a Jewish Christianity. (3) One might guess, from the mention of Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum (10:13-15; cf. 7:1), all Galilean cities, that Q was the product of a group in the south with ties to the north, or, alternatively, of a group which had moved from the north to the south (cf. the presentation in Luke-Acts: the earliest followers of Jesus were Galileans who settled in the south). One might also, given that Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum are very near each other at the north end of the Sea of Galilee, and because those three cities are not otherwise significant in the biblical tradition, guess that Q was put together in that area. 235 (4) Despite the views of some scholars, the treatment of John the Baptist in Q 3:7-7:35 is consistently positive. Q opens with John warning of the eschatological judgment of the one coming after him (Q 3:16-17). John is said by Jesus to be a prophet (Q 7:26). He is indeed more than a prophet, for he is the messenger of Mai 3:1 (Q 7:27). "Among those born of women no one is greater than John" (Q 7:28). 236 Q 7:33-34 even puts John and Jesus side by side: both were rejected by "this generation." The amount of material having to do with the Baptist shows a special interest in him and his ministry. At the same time, the absence of polemic against John reflects a situation in which Chris233. Cf. Catchpole, "The Question of Q," pp. 38-39; Paul D. Meyer, "The Gentile Mission in Q," JBL 89 (1970): 405-17; Tuckett, Q, pp. 393-404. The observation is all the stronger if one can assign Mt 10:5-6 and 10:23 to Q. 234. Catchpole, "The Question of Q," p. 38. 235. See further Jonathan L. Reed, "The Social Map of Q," in Kloppenborg, Conflict and Invention, pp. 17-36, and cf. I. Havener, Q: The Sayings of Jesus (Wilmington, Del.: Michael Glazier, 1987), pp. 42-45. W. Schenk, "Die Verwiinschung der Kiistenorte Q 10,13-15: Zur Funktion der Konkreten Ortsangaben und zur Lokalisierung von Q," in Focant, Synoptic Gospels, pp. 477-90, argues for an origin in Tiberias. 236. For the interpretation of this see p. 34. 54 The Compositional History of Q tology did not need to denigrate the forerunner in order to exalt the coming one. One naturally thinks of people who had themselves known the Baptist and remembered him in a positive light.237 Perhaps indeed the group to which Q 1 + Q 2 + Q 3 was first addressed included converts from the John the Baptist movement.238 What of the date of Q 1 + Q 2 + Q3? If Q's third stage incorporates a document produced in the 30s (Q1) as well as a second document dependent upon that first (Q2), and if it further shows no knowledge of the Jewish War, then a date in the 40s or 50s seems feasible. PAUL AND Q The genuine letters of Paul show possible or probable contact with at least the following traditions that found their way into Q: Appearing in Q 1 : • a missionary discourse239 Appearing in Q 2 : • something close to Q 12:35-48 2 4 0 • Jesus' prohibition of divorce241 • Jesus' word about faith that can move mountains 242 • the warning about scandalizing others 243 237. Cf. Catchpole, "The Question of Q," p. 38. 238. Cf. Sato, Q und Prophetie, p. 189. 239. Cf. 1 Cor 9:4, 7, 13, 14 with Q 10:7; 1 Cor 10:27 with Q 10:8; 1 Thess 4:8 with Q 10:16. See chap. 4 below; also David Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus or Founder of Christianity? (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), pp. 190-200. 240. 1 Thess 5:2-6 alludes not only to Jesus' parable of the thief (Q 12:39) but Paul's use of "night," "watch," and "drunk" in his elaboration of that allusion shows knowledge of the immediate Q context. See further C.-P. Marz, "Das Gleichnis vom Dieb. Uberlegungen zur Verbindung von Lk 12,39 par Mt 24,43 und 1 Thess 5,2.4," in Van Segbroeck, Four Gospels, vol. 1, pp. 6 3 3 - 4 8 . Cf. also perhaps 1 Cor 4:1-2 with Q 12:42. Richard Bauckham, "Synoptic Parousia Parables and the Apocalypse," NTS 23 (1977): 162-76, and "Synoptic Parousia Parables Again," NTS 29 (1983): 129-34, has shown that the parables of the watching servants, the thief, and the servant in authority circulated together and were often alluded to. 241. Cf. 1 Cor 7:10 with Q 16:18 and see David L. Dungan, The Sayings of Jesus in the Churches of Paul (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971), pp. 81-131. 242. Cf. 1 Cor 13:2; but Paul is closer to the Markan version (Mk 11:23) rather than to Q 17:6. 243. Cf. Rom 14:13 and 1 Cor 8:13 with Q 17:1-2; see on this esp. M. Thompson, Clothed with Christ: The Example and Teaching of Jesus in Romans 12:1-15:13, JSNTSS, vol. 59 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1991), pp. 174-84. But the warning against scandalizing others was also part of the pre-Markan tradition behind Mk 9:42-50; see my article, "The Pauline Parallels and the Synoptic Gospels: The Pattern of the Parallels," NTS 28 (1982): 13-15, and Ernest Best, "Mark's Preservation of the Tradition," in L'£vangile de Marc: Tradition et redaction, ed. M. Sabbe, BETL, vol. 34 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1974), pp. 28-29. Indeed, it is not clear that Paul's transitive use of OKcxvSaAi^oo The Compositional History of Q 55 Appearing in Q 3 : • the SP's beatitudes 244 • the central part of the SP245 • the saying strangely attributed to "the Wisdom of God" 246 What, if anything, does all this tell us about Q? Paul seems to have known texts that belonged to all three of Q's major stages of development. But that alone is hardly enough to establish that the apostle, like Matthew and Luke later, already knew Q. For we have no reason to think that any of the materials just cited were known only in Q. Q, rather, adopted them from its tradition. To establish that Paul or his tradition drew upon Q, one needs to show his knowledge, not of traditions taken up into Q, but of something that appeared uniquely in Q. Can this be done? (1) 1 Cor 4:8 has been thought to allude to Q 6:20-21, and 1 Cor 4:12-13 definitely makes use of traditions closely related to Q 6:2738 — traditions Paul also uses elsewhere in his correspondence. 247 Now because there are good reasons to believe that the editor of Q 3 prefaced the beatitudes to Q 6:27ff.,248 one might infer that Paul knew both the beatitudes and Jesus' teaching on nonretaliation because he knew Q. had its parallel in Q; see Neirynck, "The Minor Agreements and Q," pp. 57-59; also Fleddermann, Mark and Q, pp. 159-63. 244. Cf. Q 6:20-21 ("Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom [PaoiAeia] of God. Blessed are the hungry, for you will be satisfied") with 1 Cor 4:8 ("Already your are filled! Already you are rich, and are reigning [ePaoiAEuoaxe]!"). Paul goes on to observe that the apostles, in contrast to the Corinthians, are "hungry" (4:11). Did some of the Corinthians promote a "realized eschatology" on the basis of the Jesus tradition, which Paul then found necessary to counter? Cf. the apparent use of the first beatitude in Jas 2:5: "Has not God chosen the poor in the world to be rich in faith and to be heirs of the kingdom that he has promised to those who love him?" 245. Cf. Rom 2:1 with Q 6:37; Rom 12:14 with Q 6:28; Rom 12:17 with Q 6:2736; Rom 12:21 with Q 6:27-36; 1 Cor 4:12 with Q 6:28; and 1 Thess 5:15 with Q 6:27-36. For discussion see chap. 2 below, pp. 86-87, and David Wenham, "Paul's Use of the Jesus Tradition: Three Samples," in The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, vol. 5 of Gospel Perspectives, ed. David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), pp. 15-24 — although Wenham's contention that the form of 5:38-48 is more original than the form of Lk 6:27-36 is problematic. 246. Cf. 1 Thess 2:14-16 with Lk 11:47-51 and Mt 23:29-36, and see below, pp. 5 7 60. There is not sufficient reason to suppose that Paul knew Q's parable of the two builders (cf. 1 Cor 3:10-12 and see Allison, "Pauline Parallels," pp. 6-7) or the Great Thanksgiving (although see James M. Robinson, "Kerygma and History," in Trajectories through Early Christianity, ed. James M. Robinson and Helmut Koester [Philadelphia: Fortress, 1971], p. 42, and Peter Richardson, "The Thunderbolt in Q and the Wise Man in Corinth," in From Jesus to Paul: Studies in Honor of F. W. Beare, ed. Peter Richardson and J. C. Hurd [Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier, 1984], pp. 91-111) or the logion about the unforgivable sin (cf. 1 Cor 12:3 with Q 12:10). For useful discussion and additional literature see C. M. Tuckett, "1 Corinthians and Q , " / B L 102 (1983): 607-19; also Frans Neirynck, "Paul and the Sayings of Jesus," in Evangelica II: 1982-1991, BETL, vol. 99 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1991), pp. 511-67. 247. See nn. 244 and 245. 248. See below, p. 80. 56 The Compositional History of Q This remains a possibility, especially given the correlation in sequence between Q 6:20ff. and 1 Cor 4:8ff.: in Q the beatitudes preface Jesus' teaching on nonretaliation, whereas in 1 Corinthians 4 the proposed allusion to the former leads into clear allusions to the latter. Nevertheless, one cannot be sure that 1 Cor 4:8 is in fact an allusion to the Jesus tradition; and even if it were thought to be so, why could Paul not have known both the beatitudes and something close to Q 6:27-38 as separate oral traditions? That Q united the two does not entail that they were already united for Paul. (2) As argued in chapter 4 herein, 1 Corinthians 9 not only cites a line which appeared in Q's missionary discourse (1 Cor 9:14 = Q 10:7b: the worker is worthy of reward) but also alludes to the broader Q context for that line. This implies that Paul knew some version of the missionary discourse. It indeed implies that he knew a form of that discourse that was closer to Q 10:2-16 than to Mk 6:6-13, which has nothing corresponding to Q 10:7. This matters so much because David Catchpole has recently attributed Q 10:16, to which there is a very close parallel in 1 Thess 4:8 (cf. Gal 4:14), to Q redaction. 249 So here one might find evidence that Paul knew not just the tradition behind Q's missionary discourse but Q's missionary discourse itself, with its redactional addition. Unfortunately, however, Catchpole's case for the redactional character of Q 10:16 is inconclusive. That the saying is "self-sufficient" and "could" have survived apart from a missionary discourse (so Catchpole) hardly proves that it did. Catchpole himself observes that there is "an essential harmony" between Q 10:16 and the rest of Q's missionary discourse. Q 10:16 "overlaps with the explicit 'sending' saying, Q 10:3, at the start of the pre-Q tradition," and "it matches the recurrent pattern of positive and negative elements in Q 10:5-7, 8-12." Further, Q 10:16 "in and of itself demands a Sitz im Leben in mission." 250 These observations tell against Catchpole's claim. A redactional origin for Q 10:16 has not been established.251 But even if one were, against the evidence, to attribute 10:16 to Q redaction, and even if one were to go on from there and suspect that Paul knew Q's missionary discourse, we would still encounter the difficulty that Q 10:2-16 appeared already in Q'. We could conclude with assurance nothing more than that Q 1 had come into existence before Paul wrote 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians, that is, before 50 C.E. — something already known on other grounds. And we would still not know anything more about the date of the later expansions of Q. 249. "Mission Charge in Q," pp. 147-74. Cf. his Quest, pp. 178-79. 250. "Mission Charge in Q," p. 166. 251. Cf. Frans Neirynck, "Literary Criticism: Old and New," in Focant, Synoptic Gospels, pp. 31-32. The Compositional History of Q 57 (3) 1 Thess 2:14-16 holds more promise of helping us to date Q in its entirety. It reads as follows: For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you suffered the same things from your own compatriots as they did from the Judeans, 252 15 who killed both the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out; they displease God and oppose everyone ,6 by hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. Thus they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins; but God's wrath is just about to overtake them at last.253 In Luke 11:47-51 we find this: 47 Woe to you! For you build the tombs of the prophets whom your fathers killed. 48So you are witnesses and approve of the deeds of your fathers; for they killed them, and you build their tombs. 49Therefore also the Wisdom of God said, "I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute," 50 so the blood of all the prophets shed since the foundation of the world may be required of this generation, 51from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who perished between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation. The parallel in Matthew, 23:29-32, 34-36, has this: 29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous, 30 saying, "If we had lived in the days of our fathers, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets." 31 Thus you witness against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. 32Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. 33You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to hell? 34Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will scourge in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, that upon you may come all the righteous blood shed on the earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. 36Truly I say to you, all this will come upon this generation. 252. Although xSv 'Iov5a(a>v is usually translated "the Jews," the presence of ev xr\ 'Iou&xia just a few words earlier tells us that the meaning is "Judeans." See Jon A. Weatherly, "The Authenticity of 1 Thessalonians 2.13-16: Additional Evidence," JSNT 42 (1991): 84-86. 253. For the aorist ecpGocaev signifying imminent arrival see ibid., pp. 90-91. 58 The Compositional History of Q The Pauline text and the Q tradition both associate the killing (daiOKTeivcfl: Lk 11:49; Mt 23:31, 34; 1 Thess 2:15) of the prophets (Tipocpfjxcci: Lk 11:49-50; Mt 23:31, 34; 1 Thess 2:15) with the persecution ([EK]5U6KCO: Lk 11:49; Mt 23:34; 1 Thess 2:15) of the faithful and refer to a fulfilling ([dva]7iA/np6co; Mt 23:32; 1 Thess 2:16) of a measure of sins which will bring down eschatological judgment upon the present generation (Mt 23:32, 35-36; Lk 11:50; 1 Thess 2:16). Carol Schlueter has further made the intriguing observation that Paul and perhaps Matthew have a "diminishing hierarchy." Paul speaks first of the Lord Jesus, then of prophets, then of "us." Matthew refers first to prophets, then to wise men, then to scribes.254 At the least both Paul and Matthew mention three individuals or groups upon which persecution has fallen. These parallels of vocabulary, thought, and even structure, being "concentrated in such a short span of verses," are "too unusual to be coincidental." 255 Moreover, eK8icoKco and evavxioq (in 1 Thess 2:15) are Pauline hapax legomena, and both the harsh view of Israel and the use of ocTtOKteivco in connection with Jesus' death are unusual for Paul. Here, then, we have tradition (cf. also Acts 7:51-52). 256 How exactly do we explain the relationship between 1 Thess 2:1516 and Q 11:47-51? Michael Goulder's hypothesis that Matthew knew and used Paul's epistles, in this case 1 Thessalonians, would explain the overlap. 257 But his view is, rightly, not shared by others: it remains idiosyncratic.258 One could also urge that 1 Thess 2:15-16 is a postPauline interpolation dependent upon Matthew. That 1 Thess 2:15-16 is not Pauline is the view of Birger Pearson,259 and he is not alone in his judgment. 260 Still, the authenticity of 1 Thess 2:15-16 has gained strong support from recent studies,261 and it shall be assumed in what follows. 254. Carol J. Schlueter, Filling Up the Measure: Polemical Hyperbole and 1 Thessalonians 2.14-16, JSNTSS, vol. 98 (Sheffield: JSOT, 1994), p. 72. 255. David E. Garland, The Intention of Matthew 23, NovTSup, vol. 52 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1979), p. 169. Contrast B. Rigaux, Les Flpitres aux Thessaloniciens, £fi (Paris: J. Gabalda, 1956), pp. 445-46, and C. M. Tuckett, "Synoptic Tradition in 1 Thessalonians," in The Thessalonian Correspondence, ed. R. F. Collins, BETL, vol. 87 (Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1990), pp. 165-67. 256. See further R. Schippers, "The Pre-synoptic Tradition in 1 Thessalonians 2 : 1 3 16," NovT 9 (1967): 223-34. 257. Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974), p. 165. 258. One wonders, for example, whether Paul's epistles had been collected before Matthew wrote. 259. "1 Thess 2.13-16: A Deutero-Pauline Interpolation," HTR 64 (1971): 79-94. 260. See esp. Daryl Schmidt, "1 Thess. 2:13-16: Linguistic Evidence for an Interpolation," JBL 102 (1983): 269-79. 261. Karl P. Donfried, "Paul and Judaism. 1 Thess 2:13-16 as a Test Case," Int 38 (1984): 242-53; J. W. Simpson, "The Problems Posed by 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16 and a Solution," HBT 12 (1990); Weatherly, "1 Thessalonians 2.13-16," pp. 79-98; and Schlueter, Filling Up the Measure. The Compositional History of Q 59 Two choices remain. Either Paul and Q independently adopted a (Jewish?) tradition which was not originally attributed to Jesus, or in 1 Thess 2:15-16 Paul made use of the Jesus tradition. 262 In favor of the former possibility, Lk 11:49 introduces its quotation with a reference to "the Wisdom of God." Bultmann and others have understandably taken the words so introduced as a quotation from some lost text. 263 Maybe they are right. Perhaps then both Paul and Q made use of that lost text. The problem with this is that while Q's quotation of "the Wisdom of God" cannot extend beyond Q 11:49-51, Paul's overlap with Q does. That is, the links between Paul and Q are not confined to 1 Thess 2:1516 and Q 11:49-51 but reach beyond the oracle of doom to include material both before and after. Thus Paul's remark that "they have constantly been filling up the measure of their sins" is close to Mt 23:32: "Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers." There is admittedly no precise Lukan parallel. But nothing else points to Matthean redaction, 264 Luke has elsewhere in this section abbreviated,265 and the logic of Mt 23:32 is implicit in Q: the addressees will finish what their fathers began; that is, they too will murder the righteous (Jesus and his followers). One supposes that Luke substituted "so you are witnesses and consent to the deeds of your fathers" (Lk 11:48) for the more obscure "fill up then the measure of your fathers." 266 If so, then Paul in 1 Thess 2 : 1 5 16 alludes not only to the oracle in Q 11:49-51 but to the unit that preceded it in Q. Beyond this, 1 Thess 2:14 speaks about unbelieving Jews in Judea. The commentators on 1 Thessalonians regularly discuss why Paul, in writing the Thessalonians, should speak in particular about opposition in Judea. 267 But the verses following Q 11:47-51, that is, Q 13:3435, 268 make it plain that the oracle of doom is addressed specifically to people in Jerusalem.269 262. So J. B. Orchard, "Thessalonians and the Synoptic Gospels," Bib 19 (1938): 2 0 23, and David Wenham, The Rediscovery of Jesus' Eschatological Discourse (Sheffield: JSOT, 1984), pp. 351-52. 263. History of the Synoptic Tradition (New York: Harper & Row, 1963), p. 114. 264. nXrpxo is usually used of scriptural fulfillment in Matthew; uexpov (Mt: 2; Mk: 1; Lk: 2); Jiaxip (not of God) (Mt: 19; Mk: 13; Lk: 37). 265. E.g., Lk 11:47 ("Woe to you, for you build the memorials of the prophets, but your fathers killed them") as opposed to Mt 23:30 is so compressed as to be unintelligible: memorializing prophets does not constitute consent to their murders. 266. So also D. Wenham, Paul, pp. 336-37. 267. See, e.g., Rigaux, fcpitres aux Thessaloniciens, pp. 442-43. 268. On the order of Q here see below, pp. 201-2. 269. Note also that Q 13:34-35 refers to judgment upon Jerusalem in particular, and that some commentators on 1 Thess 2:14-16 have found there a reference to some calamity in Jerusalem (e.g., the massacre of c.E. 49; see Josephus, Bell. 2:223-27). Cf. Orchard, "Thessalonians," p. 22. 60 The Compositional History of Q Where does this then leave us? There are good reasons for thinking that it was precisely the editor of Q 3 who inserted the oracle of doom into a traditional list of woes and so gave 11:49-51 its Q context. First, that someone interpolated Q 11:49-51 into an already existing series of woes seems highly probable. 270 Q 11:49-51, which is joined to 11:47-48 by catchword, 271 destroys the balance between the first three woes and the last three woes and renders the final woe, 11:52, anticlimactic. 272 Second, the editor of Q 3 had a special interest in the themes of rejection and persecution.273 Third, 11:50 speaks of "this generation." This expression, which enlarges the polemic of a passage that is otherwise confined to Jewish leaders, is important for Q 3 but altogether absent from Q 1 and Q 2 . Fourth, 11:49 refers to sophia. This word is likewise important for Q 3 but altogether absent from Q 1 and Q 2 . Indeed, both of the large chiastic sections of Q 3 approach their conclusions with climactic sayings about sophia.274 This seems to be literary design. The argument comes down to this: if 1 Thessalonians shows knowledge not just of Q 11:49-51 but also of its Q context, and // Q 11:49-51 was given that context by the editor of Q 3 , it follows that Q 1 + Q 2 + Q 3 was in circulation before 1 Thessalonians was written (50 c.E.). Neither condition can be established beyond reasonable doubt. But both conditions seem to be very good possibilities. So one is sorely tempted to go beyond the conclusion, drawn above on other grounds, that Q passed through its third stage sometime in the 40s or 50s and to be more specific: Q 1 + Q 2 + Q 3 saw the light of the day in the 40s. JESUS AND Q Q 1 can be reckoned a very good source for the historical Jesus. It is fair to say that most scholars have thought that the hard sayings about discipleship tell us about Jesus,275 that the missionary discourse rests upon 270. Cf. Kloppenborg, Formation, pp. 143-47. Contrast Tucketr, Q, pp. 166-68. 2 7 1 . npoqynxcbv, ll:47/npcxpfiT;cx<;, ll:49/dji£KTewccv, l l : 4 8 / d n o K x e v o w i v , 1 1 : 4 9 . 272. Some, however, would argue that Q 11:52 was moved to its final place by Luke. Cf. Tuckett, Q, pp. 166-67. 273. See 6:22-23 (whose last few words may be Q redaction; see p. 101); 6:27-30; 7:31-35; 10:13-15; 11:14-23, 29-32. 274. 7:35 concludes Q's opening section, and 11:49 introduces the final words of Q's third section. I owe this observation to Ron Piper in personal conversation. 275. Harry T. Fleddermann, "The Demands of Discipleship: Matt 8,19-22 par. Luke 9,57-62," in Van Segbroeck, Four Gospels, vol. 1, pp. 541-61, endeavors to show that Q 9:57-62 "probably does not give us access to the historical Jesus." Certainly the scenes are "ideal" — what scene in the synoptics is not? — and based upon biblical models; but these are not good reasons to question that historical encounters or authentic sayings lie behind the text. Hengel, Charismatic Leader, remains persuasive. The Compositional History of Q 61 dominical directions,276 that Jesus uttered the sayings about revelation in Q 10:21 and 10:23-24, 2 7 7 that the Lord's Prayer comes from the preEaster period, 278 that the passage about asking, seeking, and knocking is authentic, 279 that the consolation in Q 12:2-12 includes sayings of Jesus, 280 and that it was he who first asked others to consider the ravens and the lilies.281 Q 1 remains such a good source for the historical Jesus not only because it remembered his words, adding little to them, but because it preserved something of their original context. Most of the sayings in Q 1 were no doubt spoken by Jesus not to the public at large but to the small circle that shared his missionary task. But Q 1 was addressed to a very similar group, that is, itinerant Christian missionaries. So Q 1 uses the sayings of Jesus in the same manner in which they were first used, namely, to instruct and console missionaries. This explains why the signs of post-Easter alteration are minimal: at this point the pre- and post-Easter settings were pretty much the same, and manipulation of the tradition was not much needed. Similar contexts permitted similar content. If Q 1 tells us as much or more about Jesus than about anyone else, this is less clear with Q 2 . Here indeed there are sayings — many sayings — which we should assign to Jesus, for example, the sayings about 276. Laufen, Die Doppeluberlieferungen, pp. 260-68. It is quite possible in fact that Q 10:3-12 was originally composed as a unit (cf. Catchpole, "Mission Charge in Q") by Jesus himself. In any case it was expanded by placing secondary material at the beginning and end — Q 10:2, (Mt 10:5-6?), (Mt 10:23?), 13-15, 16. 277. On Q 10:23-24 see Bultmann, History, p. 126. 278. See J. Meier, Mentor, Message, and Miracles, p. 294. Even though he does not attribute it to Jesus, John Dominic Crossan, Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991), p. 294, says that the Lord's Prayer "must be a very early summary of themes and emphases from Jesus' own lifetime." His skepticism is excessive, as is that of Hal Taussig, "The Lord's Prayer," Forum 4, no. 4 (1988): 25-42. Taussig regards the Lord's Prayer as a collection "from prior, unassociated prayer sentences." 279. See n. 108 and cf. Luz, Matthew 1-7, p. 421. 280. See Luz, Matthdus, vol. 2, pp. 123-24. On Q 12:4-5 in particular see Schlosser, "Le Logion," pp. 621-32. 281. See Hoffmann, "Jesu 'Verbot des Sorgens' und seine Nachgeschichte in der synoptischen Uberlieferung," in his Tradition und Situation, pp. 107-34. Contrast Michael G. Steinhauser, "The Sayings on Anxieties," Forum 6, no. 1 (1990): 67-79. In general one fails to see complex tradition histories behind any of the units in Q . This is not to say that none of them is composite. Q 12:2-12 seems obviously to be so. But sometimes our hypothetical tradition histories which envisage multiple authors and the passage of time may be off the mark. Should we not more often entertain the possibility of a single author putting together diverse materials at one time? Cf. Leif E. Vaage, "Composite Texts and Oral Myths: The Case of the 'Sermon' (6:20b-49)," in Lull, 1989 Seminar Papers, pp. 428-32 (although I do not share his conclusions about the SP). For instance, the author of Q 1 could very well have started with Q 12:4-5 + 6-7a, which he prefaced with 12:2-3. He or she could then have gone on to add 12:7b + 8-9, then 12:10 (which would not be so difficult in an Aramaic text with a nontitular use of "son of man"), then 12:11-12. 62 The Compositional History of Q divorce, stumbling, and forgiveness. There is nonetheless a significant shift in setting. Q 2 often exhibits what Joachim Jeremias, in his work on the parables, famously cataloged as signs of secondary expansion in an ecclesiastical context. 282 Although genuine parables may lie beneath them, 12:35-40 and 12:42-48 are now, for instance, allegories of Christian experience. The master of Q 12:35-38 is the coming Son of man. The servants and stewards of the parables are Christian believers. The delay of the master (Q 12:45) is the delay of the parousia. Again, the warnings of Q 13:23-30, which probably originated as polemic, are now hortatory; and the condemnation of adultery in Q 16:18 has become a community regulation. So the new Sitz im Leben of Q 2 , that of a settled Christian community, led to a reworking of the Jesus tradition and gave it new sense. Here then we feel the presence of the church almost or as much as the presence of Jesus. The same is to be said of Q 3 . Although it probably preserves authentic words of John — in Q 3:7-17 — and of Jesus — especially in the old source behind the SP — Q 3 is equally stamped by Christian interests. It is concerned not only with Christian fraternal relations 283 but also with religious rivals, namely, non-Christian exorcists, Pharisees, and scribes. It reflects an apologetic need to cite Scripture. And it aims to understand and interpret aright Jesus' miracles as well as the significance of John the Baptist. It is no surprise that these and other interests have led not only to a theologically meaningful arrangement and expansion of traditional materials but also to the creation of entirely new materials. 284 Here the temptation narrative offers proof enough. It is in no way the record of a historical event but a Christian interpretation of Jesus as the new Israel, the Son obedient to Torah. With Q 3 then we see the first long strides toward the uninhibited creativity that later led to, among other things, the canonical infancy stories and, still later, the apocryphal gospels. At the same time, it is Q 3 we must thank for the preservation of the SP, which is not only one of Western literature's great religious treasures, but also on the whole a reliable indicator of the sort of uncompromising moral demands Jesus characteristically made. PAPIAS O N C E A G A I N One last question remains. Eusebius, a fourth-century bishop of Caesarea, attributed to Papias, a first-century bishop of Hierapolis, the 282. The Parables of Jesus, 2d rev. ed. (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1972), pp. 23-114. 283. Q 6:39-45; see pp. 91-94 herein. 284. This is seemingly not the case in either Q 1 or Q . In those sections secondary additions are either minimal expansions of or commentary upon already existing traditions. The Compositional History of Q 63 following quotation: "Now Matthew made an ordered arrangement of the oracles (TCC A,6yia) in the Hebrew [or: Aramaic] language, and each one translated [or: interpreted] it as he was able" (H.E. 3:39). These words cannot readily be referred to the Gospel of Matthew, which was neither written by an eyewitness nor composed in Hebrew or Aramaic. Because of this some scholars have proposed that Papias's words — which were presumably already tradition for Papias285 — originally referred not to our canonical Matthew but to an Aramaic sayings source used by Matthew (so Schleiermacher); and the conjecture has therefore been attached to Q. 286 I should like to raise the possibility — it can be no more — that it should be attached to Q 1 . 287 Recent scholars have by and large declined to connect Papias's testimony with Q. Their reasons include the following: (1) the Sayings Source used by Matthew and Luke was a Greek document; (2) Papias's remarks are about Matthew, not a source of Matthew; 288 (3) proposed translation variants and translation mistakes are too uncertain to prove that the Greek Q was a translation, 289 and a Semitizing style does not demand a literary formulation in Aramaic. 290 The first point, however, does not really pertain to the thesis put forward herein, which holds that only a portion of Q (Q1) might be thought of as an Aramaic text. The second and third stages of Q, al285. T. W. Manson, "The Gospel of Matthew," in Studies in the Gospels and Epistles, ed. M. Black (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1962), p. 70, observes that, according to Eusebius, (1) Papias "set great store by what was handed down from earlier times and took great pains to acquire such traditional material wherever he could," and (2) Papias was "a man of exceedingly small intelligence," and would Eusebius "have troubled to quote the private opinion of a man, whom he rated as low as this, on a point of such importance?" 286. See esp. Manson, Sayings, pp. 15-20; idem, "Gospel of Matthew," pp. 68-104. Cf. Streeter, Four Gospels, p. 501, and those listed by Kiimmel, Introduction, p. 120 n. 69; also now Koester, Gospels, pp. 166-67. 287. Cf. David Hill, The Gospel of Matthew, New Century Bible (London: Oliphants, 1977), pp. 22-27, who follows Manson but thinks of "a Matthean (apostolic) collection of sayings (which formed part of Q)" (italics his). Andre Tuilier, "La Didache et le probleme synoptique," in The Didache in Context: Essays on Its Text, History, and Transmission, ed. Clayton N. Jefford, NovTSup, vol. 77 (Leiden: E. J. Brill, 1995), pp. 110-30, similarly argues that Papias's tradition refers to one of Q's sources. 288. J. Kiirzinger, Papias von Hierapolis und die Evangelien des Neuen Testaments (Regensburg: F. Pustet, 1983), argues that the Greek words I have translated "in the Hebrew [or: Aramaic] language" should instead be rendered "in Jewish style." But this possible if unlikely rendering comes up against the fact that patristic tradition (in likely dependence upon Papias) is unanimous in speaking about a "Hebrew Gospel." Cf. Matthew Black, "The Use of Rhetorical Terminology in Papias on Mark and Matthew," JSNT 37 (1989): 33-34. Moreover, surely 'EPpcxT8i 8iccA.eKTCp + epur)ve\xo suggests translation from one language to another. 289. See esp. Kloppenborg, Formation, pp. 54-59. But for a response to this see Black, "Aramaic Dimension," pp. 3 3 - 4 1 . 290. See further Heinz O. Guenther, "The Sayings Gospel Q and the Quest for Aramaic Sources: Rethinking Christian Origins," in Kloppenborg and Vaage, Early Christianity, Q, and Jesus, pp. 41-76. He seemingly believes that the Jesus tradition was at all stages Greek. 64 The Compositional History of Q though they incorporate many sayings and even some large sections that were first formulated in Aramaic (e.g., Q 6:27-38), were composed as Greek texts. The second objection is no more challenging. If Papias was, as seems likely, himself passing on tradition, it is easy to imagine that, after the disappearance of Q and the appearance of Matthew, something thought to be true of the former might be thought true of the latter. Jewish tradition often expanded and remade books such as Isaiah and yet kept the original prophet's name for the entire collection. In like manner it seems plausible enough that if a person of apostolic reputation had been the author of Q 1 (in this case Matthew), his name might have remained associated with its subsequent expansions, including the Gospel of Matthew. 291 The third objection against associating Papias and Q is more forceful. One can never prove that the Semitisms of a Greek text require that it be translation Greek.292 But if there can be no proof, there remain cases in which the style is such that it is sensible to postulate a Semitic original. Raymond Martin's statistical tables seem to tell us that this generalization applies to Q 1 . It could be the Greek rendering of a Semitic document. If the usual arguments against linking Papias's testimony to Q are not decisive against a link with Q 1 , what is to be said in favor of such a link? There are several correlations between Q 1 and Papias's words: 1. Papias's tradition concerns X,6yia, a word whose first meaning is "oracle." 293 Q 1 was a collection of sayings of Jesus. 2. Papias's tradition is about a certain Matthew, a man the NT tells us received missionary instructions from Jesus and was sent out as a missionary.294 Q 1 was written for missionaries. 3. The NT also assumes that this Matthew was a Palestinian Jew (see esp. Mt 9:9). Q 1 was written in Palestine. 4. Papias said the oracles were written "in the Hebrew [or: Aramaic] language." Q 1 , as we have seen, could be translation Greek according to the statistical tables of Raymond Martin. 291. Cf. Koester, Gospels, p. 167: "The Gospel of Matthew may have taken over the name of its author from the source of sayings that was used in its composition." 292. Cf. esp. E. P. Sanders, The Tendencies of the Synoptic Tradition, SNTSMS (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969). 293. Even if Papias used the term with broader meaning, this cannot determine what his tradition might have meant. See the still-useful review of T. W. Manson, "Gospel of Matthew." 294. Mt 10:3; Mk 3:18; Lk 6:15; cf. Acts 1:13. The Compositional History of Q 65 5. Eusebius understood Papias's words to concern the Gospel of Matthew. Q 1 eventually became part of the Gospel we know as Matthew. 6. Anything written by a companion of Jesus might be a good source for Jesus' teaching. Q 1 is a good source for the teaching of the historical Jesus. The correlations between Q 1 and Papias's words about Matthew do not, I freely confess, prove anything. What is offered here is only a very tentative hypothesis, the hypothesis that Matthew the missionary gathered the traditions of Jesus which lie behind a document now embedded within one of the First Gospel's sources. Obviously one is here in the realm of speculation. But the conjecture does have the virtue of coming to terms with Papias. For it makes explicable what is otherwise a very baffling tradition. Although it is quite common today to dismiss Papias (as well all patristic tradition about the NT documents), one should wonder whether we can disregard his words without offering some explanation for them. Were they just conjured out of thin air? 295 One is unhappy at returning an affirmative answer. Not only must Papias's tradition be dated "to the time shortly before or after 100," 296 that is, perhaps only a decade after the composition of Matthew; but the apostle Matthew seems to have been a figure of little stature in early Christianity. He was not a man about whom stories and legends soon developed, or at least there is no evidence of such. In first-century sources he is not much more than a name on some lists. Later Christian tales about him exhibit nothing but constant flux and delightful variety: there were seemingly no firm traditions about the man. 297 So one hesitates to characterize Papias's tradition as nothing but unfounded legend. Why a legend about this particular apostle? One may well agree with Donald Hagner: "Papias had reasons for saying what he did, and although our knowledge now is partial, we do well to attempt to make sense of his testimony."298 295. Luz, Matthew 1-7, pp. 93-94, supposes that Mt 9:9 and 10:3 were the source of the tradition. The argument is unclear. What is there in 9:9 and 10:3 that could have suggested to somebody that Matthew was the author? There are many named believers in the First Gospel. Why was the First Gospel attributed to Matthew rather than, say, Andrew, or James, or Philip, or Bartholomew? Certainly Peter, James, and John play more significant roles than Matthew. 296. Ibid., p. 94. Papias's dates should perhaps be pushed back to the very beginning of the second century; see Gundry, Matthew, pp. 610-11; U. H. J. Kortner, Papias von Hierapolis: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des friihen Christentums, FRLANT, vol. 133 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983); R. W. Yarbrough, "The Date of Papias: A Reassessment," JETS 26 (1983): 181-91. 297. Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 1, p. 146 n. 125. Strangely enough, Matthew shows up on the list of five disciples of Jesus in b. Sanh. 43a. 298. Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13, WBC, vol. 33A (Dallas: Word, 1993), p. xlvi. 66 The Compositional History of Q One final point. Canonical Matthew may itself hint at a connection with Matthew. Mk 2:14 tells of Jesus passing along and seeing "Levi the (son) of Alphaeus sitting at the toll booth." In Mt 9:9 Levi has become "Matthew." This change has puzzled commentators, who have offered several different explanations for it.299 But one recurrent suggestion is that while Levi was of no interest to the author of the First Gospel and his readers, they did know of a Matthew who was somehow connected with their traditions. 300 This guess seems as good as any. Koester, Gospels, pp. 166-67, speculates that Gos. Thorn. 13 may reflect belief in Matthew's authorship of a sayings collection. 299. See Davies and Allison, Matthew, vol. 2, pp. 98-99. 300. So, e.g., Alexander Sand, Das Evangelium nach Matthaus, RNT (Regensburg: Friedrich Pustet, 1984), p. 196. Cf. Joachim Gnilka, Das Matthausevangelium, vol. 1., HTKNT (Freiburg: Herder, 1986), p. 331.