The Sayings Source E-Book

Markus Tiwald

• Herausgeber: Kohlhammer Verlag
• Kategorie: Religion und Spiritualität
• Sprache: Englisch
• Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2020

Seitenzahl: 559

Beschreibung

The so-called "Sayings Source" ("Q") contains traditions that can be found in the narrative gospels of Matthew and Luke. Situated within both early Judaism and the burgeoning Jesus movement, the sayings waver somewhere between the historical Jesus and the Christian communities. Following the reconstructed text of the "Critical Edition of Q", Tiwald brings a new study on the narratology of Q as a coherent attempt to answer the question: Who is Jesus?

Leseprobe

Markus Tiwald

The Sayings Source

A Commentary on Q

W. Kohlhammer

1. Edition 2020

All rights reserved

© W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart

Production: W. Kohlhammer GmbH, Stuttgart

Print:

ISBN 978-3-17-037438-6

E-Book-Formate:

pdf: ISBN 978-3-17-037439-3

epub: ISBN 978-3-17-037440-9

mobi: ISBN 978-3-17-037441-6

W. Kohlhammer bears no responsibility for the accuracy, legality or content of any external website that is linked or cited, or for that of subsequent links.

The so-called ›Sayings Source‹ (›Q‹) contains traditions that can be found in the narrative gospels of Matthew and Luke. Situated within both early Judaism and the burgeoning Jesus movement, the sayings waver somewhere between the historical Jesus and the Christian communities. Following the reconstructed text of the ›Critical Edition of Q‹, Tiwald brings a new study on the narratology of Q as a coherent attempt to answer the question: Who is Jesus?

Prof. Dr. Markus Tiwald, Professor of New Testament at the University of Duisburg-Essen.

Content

Acknowledgements

Part I: Introduction to this Commentary

1.  Preliminary Questions

1.1  The Existence of the Sayings Source

1.2  The Reconstruction of Q

1.2.1  The Critical Edition of Q

1.2.2  Narratological Access to Q

1.2.3  Consequences for this Commentary

1.2.4  Textual Fluidity as an Essential Feature of Q

1.2.5  Textual Basis for this Commentary

2.  Positioning this Commentary among other Q-Commentaries

2.1  Status Quaestionis

2.2  Aliquid Novi?

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

1.  The Time and Place of Q’s Composition

1.1  The Time of Q’s Literal Composition

1.2  The Place of Composition

2.  The Community behind the Sayings Source

2.1  Q and Early Judaism

2.1.1  Jesus vs. Torah?

2.1.2  Anti-Jewish Polemics in Q?

2.1.3  Gentile Mission in Q?

2.2  The Authors of Q

2.2.1  Itinerant Prophets …

2.2.2  … and Village Scribes

2.3  The Heritage Contained in Q

2.3.1  Q as Witness to Early Jesus Traditions

2.3.2  The Heritage of Q

3.  Extent and Structure of Q

3.1  Deviations from the Lukan Sequence

3.1.1  The Q-Order Proposed by the CEQ

3.1.2  Modifications of the CEQ-Sequence

3.2  Extent of the Q-Text

3.3  The Structure of the Q-Text

3.4  The Narrative Plot of Q

3.4.1  Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (Q 3:2b–7:35)

3.4.2  Narrative Cycle 2: The MissionariesThe Messengers of the Son of Man (Q 9:57–11:13)

3.4.3  Narrative Cycle 3: The AdversariesNatural and Supernatural Opponents (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

3.4.4  Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the CommunityConfidence in Distress (Q 12:2–13:21)

3.4.5  Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the OpponentsAnnouncement of Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23)

3.4.6  Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End TimesThe Disciples in Attendance at the Parousia (Q 14:26–17:6)

3.4.7  Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30)

3.5  Q’s Plot and the Stages of Salvation History

3.6  Oral Performance and Literal Framing

Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source

Title and Introduction of Q?

Narrative Cycle 1: The Main Actors John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth (Q 3:2b–7:35)

Narrative Unit 1: The Message of John (Q 3:2b–17)

The Introduction of John (Q 3:2b–3a)

John’s Announcement of Judgement (Q 3:7–9)

John and the One to Come (Q 3:16b–17)

Narrative Unit 2: The Baptism and Testing of Jesus (Q 3:21–22; 4:1–13.16)

The Baptism of Jesus (Q 3:21–22)

Narrative Unit 3: Jesus’ Programmatic Address (Q 6:20–49)

Beatitudes (Q 6:20–23)

Love Your Enemies & Renounce Violence (Q 6:27–28.35cd.29–30)

The Golden Rule & Being Full of Mercy (Q 6:31–32.34.36)

Not Judging (Q 6:37–38)

The Blind Leading the Blind (Q 6:39)—The Disciple and the Teacher (Q 6:40)

The Speck and the Beam (Q 6:41–42)

The Tree is Known by its Fruit (Q 6:43–45)

Not Just Saying »Master, Master« (Q 6:46)

Built on Rock or Sand (Q 6:47–49)

Narrative Unit 4: The Gentile Officer’s Faith in Jesus’ Word (Q 7:1–10)

Narrative Unit 5: John and Jesus (Q 7:18–35 and 16:16)

John’s Inquiry about the One to Come (Q 7:18–19.22–23)

John—More than a Prophet (Q 7:24–28)

The Reign of God is Violated (Q 16:16)

For and Against John (Q 7:29–30)

This Generation and the Children of Wisdom (Q 7:31–35)

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries The Messengers of the Son of Man (Q 9:57–11:13)

Narrative Unit 1: Radical Discipleship (Q 9:57–60)

Foxes and Birds (Q 9:57–58)

Leave the Dead to Bury their Own Dead! (Q 9:59–60)

Narrative Unit 2: Instruction for Mission (Q 10:2–16)

Workers for the Harvest (Q 10:2)

Sheep among Wolves (Q 10:3)

Rule for Provisions: Mission in Emblematic Poverty (Q 10:4)

House-Mission and Town-Mission (Q 10:5–12)

Woes against Galilean Towns (Q 10:13–15)

Whoever Takes You in Takes Me in (Q 10:16)

Narrative Unit 3: The Special Revelation of the Son (Q 10:21–24)

Hidden from Sages, Revealed to Children (Q 10:21)

Knowing the Father through the Son (Q 10:22)

Blessed are the Eyes that See What You See (Q 10:23–24)

Narrative Unit 4: The Trustful Prayer of the Disciples (Q 11:2b–4.9–13)

The Lord’s Prayer (Q 11:2b–4)

Ask and It will be Given to You (Q 11:9–13)

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries Natural and Supernatural Opponents (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18)

Narrative Unit 1: Jesus’ Victory over the Demons (Q 11:14–26)

Casting out Demons by the Finger of God (Q 11:14–15.17–20)

Burgling a Strong Person (Q 11:21–22)

The One not with Me (Q 11:23)

The Return of the Unclean Spirit (Q 11:24–26)

Narrative Unit 2: The Judgement over »This Generation« (Q 11:16.29–32)

The Sign of Jonah (Q 11:16.29–30)

The Queen of the South and the Men of Nineveh (Q 11:31–32)

Narrative Unit 3: Let your Light Shine! (Q 11:33–35)

The Light on the Lampstand (Q 11:33)

The Light within You (Q 11:34–35)

Narrative Unit 4: Against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law (Q 16:17–18; 11:39–52)

No Iota and no Serif of the Law to Fall (Q 16:17)

Prohibition of Divorce and Remarriage (Q 16:18)

Woes against the Pharisees (Q 11:42.39b.41.43–44)

Woes against the Scribes of the Law (Q 11:46b.52.47–48)

Wisdom’s Judgment on »This Generation« (Q 11:49–51)

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the CommunityConfidence in Distress (Q 12:2–13:21)

Narrative Unit 1: Proclaiming Jesus without Fear (Q 12:2–12)

Uncovering What Is Hidden (Q 12:2–3)

Not Fearing the Body’s Death (Q 12:4–5)

More Precious than Many Sparrows (Q 12:6–7)

Confessing the Son of Man (Q 12:8–9)

Speaking against the Holy Spirit (Q 12:10)

Hearings before Synagogues (Q 12:11–12)

Narrative Unit 2: Search for the Reign of God! (Q 12:22b–34)

Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies (Q 12:22b–31)

Storing up Treasures in Heaven (Q 12:33–34)

Narrative Unit 3: The Coming of the Son of Man (Q 12:39–59)

The Son of Man Comes as a Robber (Q 12:39–40)

The Faithful or Unfaithful Slave (Q 12:42–46)

Fire on the Earth (Q 12:49)

Children against Parents (Q 12:51.53)

Settling out of Court (Q 12:58–59)

Narrative Unit 4: Parables of the Reign of God (Q 13:18–21)

The Parable of the Mustard Seed (Q 13:18–19) and the Yeast (Q 13:20–21)

Narrative Cycle 5: Consequences for the Opponents Announcement of Judgement (Q 13:24–14:23)

Locked Out (Q 13:24–29)

The Reversal of the Last and the First (Q 13:30)

Judgment over Jerusalem (Q 13:34–35)

The Exalted are Humbled and the Humble are Exalted (Q 14:11)

The Parable of the Invited Dinner Guests (Q 14:16–18.21.23)

Narrative Cycle 6: Instructions for the End Times The Disciples in Attendance at the Parousia (Q 14:26–17:21)

Narrative Unit 1: Discipleship without Compromise (Q 14:26–17:2)

Hating One’s Family & Taking Up One’s Cross (Q 14:26–27)

Losing One’s Life (Q 17:33)

Tasteless Salt (Q 14:34–35)

God or Mammon (Q 16:13)

Against Tempting Little Ones (Q 17:1–2)

Narrative Unit 2: The Forgiveness of God and of One Another (Q 15:4–10; 17:4)

The Lost Sheep (Q 15:4.5a.7)

The Lost Coin (Q 15:8–10)

Forgiving Seven Times (Q 17:3–4)

Narrative Unit 3: Faith Like a Mustard Seed (Q 17:6)

Faith Like a Mustard Seed (Q 17:6)

Narrative Cycle 7: The Impending End (Q 17:23–22:30)

Narrative Unit 1: The Day of the Son of Man (Q 17:23–37; 19:12–26)

The Son of Man Like Lightning (Q 17:23–24)

Vultures around a Corpse (Q 17:37)

As in the Days of Noah (Q 17:26–27.30)

One Taken, One Left (Q 17:34–35)

The Parable of the Entrusted Money (Q 19:12–13.15–24.26)

Narrative Unit 2: Judging the Twelve Tribes of Israel (Q 22:28.30)

Part IV: Excursi

Excursus 1: Reign of God, Disempowerment of Satan, Son of Man

1.1  The Reign of God

1.1.1  The Term »Reign of God«

1.1.2  Origins of the Term

1.2  The Disempowerment of Satan

1.3  The Son of Man

1.4  Reading Q Against the Backdrop of Early Jewish Assumptions

1.4.1  The Expectations of the Baptist

1.4.2  Jesus’ Paradigm Shift

1.4.3  Jesus’ Experience

1.4.4  Jesus’ Continuation of the Baptist’s Ideas

1.4.5  The Restitution of Humanity

1.4.6  The Son of Man in Jesus’ Thought and in Q

Excursus 2: The Use of Scripture in Q

2.1  The Sacred Scriptures of the Authors behind Q

2.1.1  The ›Canon‹ of the Jewish ›Bible‹

2.1.2  Aramaic Sources of Q

2.1.3  The so-called ›Septuagint‹

2.2  Scriptural Quotations in Q

2.2.1  Direct and Indirect Quotations

2.2.2  Direct Quotations in Q

2.2.3  Indirect Quotations in Q

2.2.4  Index of Direct and Indirect Quotations in Q

2.3  Results

Excursus 3: God’s Advocacy for the Poor and the »Violent Fate of Prophets«

3.1  God’s Advocacy for the Poor

3.1.1   Piety in Poverty in Early Judaism

3.1.2  Jesus’ Advocacy for the Poor

3.1.3  Advocacy for the Poor in the Sayings Source

3.2  The »Violent Fate of Prophets«

3.3  Textual Pragmatics of Piety in Poverty and the »Violent Fate of Prophets«

Excursus 4: Apocalyptic Patterns in Q

4.1  Eschatological Chaos

4.1.1  The Eschatological Testing

4.1.2  »This Generation«

4.1.3  Eschatological War and Disruption of Families

4.1.4  Imagery of Violence and Insistence

4.2  The Eschatological Peace of God

4.2.1  Restitution of the Peace of Paradise

4.2.2  The Materially Noticeable Peace of God

4.2.3  Emblematic Non-Violence and Confidence in God

4.3  Jesus’ Optimism vs. Judgement in Q?

4.3.1  Ambivalent Eschatological Expectations

4.3.2  A Comparison with Other Early Jewish Writings

Excursus 5: Parables and Metaphorical Imagery in Q

5.1  General Considerations on the Parables of Jesus

5.1.1  Parables and the Historical Jesus

5.1.2  Parables in the Sayings Source

5.1.3  The Message of Q-Parables

5.2  Gendered Couplets in Q’s Imagery

5.2.1  Gendered Couplets …

5.2.2  … and their Interpretation in Feminist Exegesis

Bibliography

1.  Primary Literature

1.1  Classic Literature

1.1.1  Early Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

1.1.2  Qumran Manuscripts

1.1.3  Philo and Josephus

1.1.4  Pagan Authors

1.1.5  Rabbinic Literature

1.1.6  Early Christian Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

1.1.7  Patristic Literature

1.2  Edition of the Sayings Source

2.  Tools

3.  Secondary Literature

Index

1.  Subject Index

2.  Index of Primary Sources

2.1  Old Testament

Genesis

Exodus

Leviticus

Numbers

Deuteronomy

Joshua

Judges

Ruth

1 Samuel

2 Samuel

1 Kings

2 Kings

1 Chronicles

2 Chronicles

Nehemiah

Tobit

Judith

1 Maccabees

2 Maccabees

Job

Psalms

Proverbs

Wisdom

Sirach

Isaiah

Jeremiah

Lamentations

Baruch

Ezekiel

Daniel

Hosea

Joel

Amos

Jonah

Micah

Zechariah

Malachi

2.2  Early Jewish Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

2.3  Dead Sea Scrolls

2.4  Philo of Alexandria

2.5  Josephus

2.6  Greek and Roman Authors

2.7  New Testament (including the Sayings Source)

Sayings Source

Matthew

Mark

Luke

John

Acts of the Apostles

Romans

1 Corinthians

2 Corinthians

Galatians

Ephesians

Colossians

1 Thessalonians

1 Timothy

2 Timothy

Hebrews

James

1 Peter

2 Peter

Revelation

2.8  Targums

2.9  Rabbinic Writings

2.10  Patristic Writings

2.11  Early Christian Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha

Acknowledgements

This book is the English translation of my German commentary on the Sayings Source (Kommentar zur Logienquelle, Kohlhammer 2019). Shortly before the publication of the German version, Dr. Sebastian Weigert from Kohlhammer asked me whether I would like to translate it into English. I was glad that he offered me the precious help of Dr. J. Andrew Doole, Assistant Professor at the University of Innsbruck, to supervise and proofread my translation. To both I owe many thanks for having made this book possible!

Such a translation is always a difficult undertaking—in parts I decided to reformulate the text completely. Particularly problematic were the many quotes in German—should I leave those (and risk an illegible compositum of two languages) or omit them completely (and thus reduce the background discussion to a minimum)? I decided to put the most important German quotes into the footnotes so that the commentary is readable for those without any knowledge of German while the relevant quotations are preserved for scholars and others who are interested. As a welcome side effect, this commentary establishes a dialogue between German- and English-speaking scholarly traditions.

Vienna/Austria, October 2019 Markus Tiwald

Part I: Introduction to this Commentary

This book is the English translation of my German commentary on the Sayings Source (Kommentar zur Logienquelle, Kohlhammer 2019)—enlarged with some passages of my introduction to Q (Die Logienquelle. Text, Kontext und Theologie der Quelle Q, Kohlhammer 2016). As the general questions concerning the »Two Document Hypothesis« and the existence of the »Sayings Source« are discussed exhaustively in this introduction, this commentary only offers a short résumé to these questions (and only refers in footnotes to a more extensive analysis).

1.  Preliminary Questions

1.1  The Existence of the Sayings Source

The »Two Document Hypothesis« (henceforth: 2DH) teaches us that Matthew and Luke, in the process of writing their gospels, not only used the Gospel of Mark but also a second document, the so-called »Sayings Source«—or simply »Q« (from the German Quelle »source«). Notwithstanding the fact that this source is not preserved for us as a manuscript but merely reconstructed out of the parallel passages in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (after subtracting material from the Gospel of Mark), one nevertheless discovers a text with a certain narrato­logical and theological consistency.1 Recent research has demonstrated convincingly that Q had a consistent narratological flow with a coherent theological plot.2 This fits well with the exhaustive review of recent synoptic studies by A. Lindemann, who states that the Q-hypothesis can still be seen as the most convincing response to this problem.3 In spite of all remaining questions,4 the assumption of the existence of a »Sayings Source« as second literary document for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke still seems the most viable way to resolve the Synoptic Problem.

1.2  The Reconstruction of Q

Up for more debate than the general existence of Q is the question as to how it is to be reconstructed.

1.2.1  The Critical Edition of Q

In 2000 the Critical Edition of Q (CEQ) was published, edited by J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, J. S. Kloppenborg and M. Moreland. This recon­struction summarises the results of the International Q-Project (IQP), founded in 1989.5 The CEQ presents a quite »conservative« reconstruction, free from any far-reaching speculations.6 In addition to this, the ongoing project Documenta Q in 32 volumes (twelve have been published to date) presents the complete literature on the reconstruction of the respective verses of Q from the last three centuries (C19th to C21st).

The CEQ thus offers a quite reliable reconstruction. Nevertheless, the editors see their work as the ongoing task of reconstruction, as J. Robinson puts it in the introduction to the CEQ (lxxi): »It is not to be assumed that the present critical text is a last word. … The … present volume … is intended to facilitate the study of Q, and thus to stimulate this ongoing process. … It is thus to be hoped that the refinement of the text of Q will continue unabated …«7

1.2.2  Narratological Access to Q

In recent research, comprehensive narratological studies on the Sayings Source have contradicted the often-repeated view that Q might only have been a loose collection of sayings and not a consistent literary document—merely some sort of loose-leaf notebook without narrative or theological coherence.8 M. Labahn’s exhaustive monography Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender: Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte (2010) has clearly demonstrated that Q is not an accidental collection of randomly acquired sayings9—comparable for example to the Gospel of Thomas—but that Q has a continuous narrative structure and a literary plot.10 In this sense J. Kloppenborg had already claimed: »… we can speak of Q as a ›literary unity‹ …«11 Certainly, Q mainly consist of »sayings and speeches«, yet this material nevertheless constitutes a »narratology of sayings«.12 One has to reckon with an argumentative unity of Q.13 Exactly here the Mainz Approach of Metaphorology and Narratology in the Sayings Source (2014) by R. Zimmermann and his team has consequences for further work with Q:14

… how exactly can one consider or work with a text, which does not exist, or to put it more precisely, which does not exist as a manuscript? … Is there a way to analyse a text without having the exact wording? … Here, the analysis of metaphors and narrative criticism has proven itself useful in many fields. … Even if the Q text cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty from the readings in Matthew and Luke, it is possible to make plausible statements about its composition.

This method is further described by A. Bork Die Raumsemantik und Figurensemantik der Logienquelle (2015) as an intertextual approach to the text that no longer seeks a literal reconstruction of Q but tries to understand the big narratological patterns of Matthew and Luke’s second source.15 Thus, D. Roth describes the approach as follows:16

… when Matthew and Luke incorporated Q into their Gospels, they did not simply pick up on the words of their source, but drew out a whole realm of metaphors and images as well as narratival und sociocultural elements. … Thus, Q as a source cannot be reduced simply to the words of Q and at the same time, a specific, word-for-word reconstructed Q text is not necessarily a prerequisite for analyzing Q as a source.

Nevertheless, it was again J. Kloppenborg (2000) who had already paved the way for such an approach:17

… it must be kept in mind that there is already in the double tradition approximately 50 percent verbal agreement even if it is still sometimes necessary to decide the syntax of the sentence. For example, in Q 15:4 … This text is typical. It illustrates the fact that disagreement in vocabulary notwith­standing, the general sense of the Q text is clear.

The most recent narratological and sociological studies on Q prove the accuracy of this approach. H. Scherer Königsvolk und Gotteskinder (2016) underscores that the material of Q offers an independent and theologically consistent strain of Jesus tradition.18

1.2.3  Consequences for this Commentary

In accordance with the aforementioned Narratological Approach to the Sayings Source, one can conclude that Q’s narratological plot can be understood even without a complete and correct reconstruction of Q. Nevertheless, the approach taken here by no means seeks to abandon the project of the reconstruction of Q. This commentary builds on the meticulous work accomplished by the Critical Edition of Q. Even if this reconstruction can never reach a reliability of 100%, it nonetheless offers an accurate basis for this commentary. Hence this study offers a balanced mix of both elements. On the one hand a text-based exegesis without an indulgence in the exuberant details of reconstruction, and on the other hand a narratological approach without ignoring the issue of the base text. Thus, the quest for a correct reconstruction of Q is not dismissed but—thanks to the reliable results of the CEQ—does not represent the primary concern of this commentary.

Here the two points of H. Scherer’s critique of the Mainz Approach are certainly helpful. Firstly, she emphasizes that an exclusive reliance on the narrative approach in ignoring all forms of text reconstruction might lead to a projection of our own narratological ideas onto the text (»Zu groß ist dabei die Gefahr, die tatsächlich vorhandenen Daten mit unbewussten narrative Eintragungen anzureichern und so den gesuchten ›Sinn‹ der Texte schnell zu justieren«19). Secondly, she rightly criticises the approach of A. Bork for ignoring the cultural and sociological context to focus solely on narratological patterns. Both criticsms hit the nail on the head and shall be reflected in this commentary. 1) The CEQ offers a reliable text basis permitting this commentary to focus mainly on the theological patterns of Q (but without ignoring questions of text reconstruction). 2) The sociocultural and socio­theological wort background of the Sayings Source are main points of particular interest in this commentary: Q shall be read against the backdrop of early Judaism and placed within the picture of Second Temple Palestine (cf. the Excursi in Part IV).20

1.2.4  Textual Fluidity as an Essential Feature of Q

In reconstructing »the« Sayings Source, one must not forget that the text underwent a period of thirty years growth with development in different stages.21 Perhaps one can even assume with G. Theißen that a primary core of logia-collections dates back to the time of Jesus himself, when he sent out his disciples as missionaries (cf. Mark 6:7 // Luke 10:1). Here the master obviously teaches his emissaries the basic thrust of his message which they can proclaim. Such texts might have formed the core of later sayings-traditions.22 After Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples continued their missionary work by adopting and adapting Jesus’ sayings.

About 60 CE the oral traditions of the Sayings Source were framed within a literary document, written down by village scribes. Nevertheless, this by no means ended the phase of oral fluidity—modern approaches reckon with a longer time span of secondary orality: parallel to the written transmission, oral performance of the text was still current.23 At that time most people were illiterate, and scrolls with a written text of the length of Q were quite expensive and far too bulky to be carried over long distances. Hence missionaries, even after the text had been written down, could still rely on their memorized versions of the sayings. Accordingly, even the genre of a missionary sermon must not be imagined as the reading aloud of a fixed text, but as a dramatical mise en scene. It is not the verbatim repetition of a »canonical« text which was important, but the inspired presentation of the missionaries’ convictions.24 »[I]n a situation where literacy was very low, texts were ›performed‹ rather than read in the way that modern literate readers approach texts.«25 Some variant readings thus might not be deliberate redactions or copy errors, but simply diverging »performances«.26 The aforementioned Narratological Approach to the Sayings Source thus is not only a makeshift solution for not having the original text, but the only ›genre‹-appropriate approach to Q.

1.2.5  Textual Basis for this Commentary

Generally, the CEQ offers the textual basis for this commentary. Never­theless, in some cases (which will be explained in detail) the commentary proposes an alternative reconstruction. This is in accordance with the wishes of the editors of the CEQ, who did not provide a complete text, but offered different grades of plausibility for a reconstruction.

I have provided an English translation on the basis of such a reconstructed Q-text.27 The translation avoids text-critical sigla. Firstly, they would disturb the flow of the text. Secondly, the commentary puts the main focus not on detailed reconstruction but on highlighting the theological and narratological plot of Q. For a detailed justification of this reconstruction, the reader easily can consult the CEQ. Only if the text diverges from the CEQ is a detailed explanation given. Thirdly, subtle details of the reconstruction can be seen only in the Greek text. As this commentary operates on the basis of the English text (but with due recourse to the Greek form), unfortunately not all intricate details of reconstruction can be taken into account.

Although I do not provide text critical sigla, I want to emphasize that this should not lead to the illusion that we have the original form of the Q-text. Nevertheless, without the comprehensive details concerning reconstruction, the reader should see the big picture of Q’s narratological plot and consistent theology. I am deeply convinced that this is feasible—even if we never will be able to reconstruct Q verbatim in all its details.

2.  Positioning this Commentary among other Q-Commentaries

2.1  Status Quaestionis

A commentary should always address the questions of Cui Bono? and Aliquid Novi?: does this publication really contribute something new? In the German speaking world the necessity of an update surely is evident, as the last Q Commentary was published by D. Zeller (1984 in the series Stuttgarter Kleiner Kommentar, SKK).28

In the English-speaking world there appears to be no need for such an update: H. Fleddermann published Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary in 2005 and in the same year R. Valantasis brought out The New Q: A Fresh Translation with Commentary. Fleddermann’s meticulous and comprehensive thousand-page commentary really is a milestone in Q-research. Nevertheless, two major deficits reduce the value of this opus magnum. Firstly, Fleddermann maintains the minority view »that Mark knew and used Q«.29 And secondly, he also has the unusual proposal »that the background of Q lies in gentile Christianity«,30 for »From start to finish Q reads like a gentile Christian gospel.«31

Especially Fleddermann’s thesis, »that the author of Q was a gentile Christian writing for other gentile Christians«32 leads to certain imbalances in his commentary, given that a growing number of Q-scholars see the matrix of the Sayings Source as still deeply rooted in early Judaism (see below, II.2.1: Q and Early Judaism). In accordance with this, Fleddermann also categorically denies that Q might still preserve Jesus traditions. For him »the characters of Q, including Jesus, [are] literary figures« and thus only »literary constructs«33 without any connection to the historical Jesus or to his Galilean followers. Certainly, the Sayings Source must not be (mis)taken uncritically as the ipsissima vox Jesu, but nevertheless the overwhelming majority of scholars see in Q an important bridge to the historical Jesus34 (see below, II. 2.3: The Heritage Contained in Q). In addition to this, Fleddermann’s commentary mainly focusses on the reconstruction of the text of Q and not so much on exegetical questions. In spite of the major contribution of Fleddermann’s commentary, the theological and narratological plot of Q is treated somewhat briefly.

Valantasis’ commentary offers a completely different picture. Incomprehensibly, this monograph contains no references to secondary literature, and indeed no notes at all. There also is not a word about such common questions in Q research as by whom, when, where, and why Q might have been written. Thus, Valantasis’ exegesis somewhat hangs in thin air. Or as J. Verheyden has put it in his review: »… at times it may appear Valantasis had to stretch the text to have it say what he thinks it means.«35

In addition to these aforementioned commentaries, there nevertheless exists a plethora of excellent publications on Q, albeit not »commentaries« in the strict sense of the word. In the English speaking world one has to point out the ground-breaking analyses by J. Kloppenborg and C. Tuckett. Both scholars have worked over more than forty years on the Sayings Source. Both scholars have emphasized that the Sayings Source was a document of early Judaism, whose authors had not yet broken from their Jewish matrix. The same applies to the publications on Q and on the Synoptic Problem by J. Verheyden and P. Foster. Even if not all of their publications are referred to in this commentary, they are nevertheless quoted in the preliminary volume to this monograph, Die Logienquelle: Text, Kontext, Theologie. Their discussions of the synoptic problem form the backdrop to this commentary.

Also essential for this commentary have been the many publications of P. Hoffmann and C. Heil. Both have introduced Q-research to the German speaking world. P. Hoffmann was one of the editors of the Critical Edition of Q. His Studien zur Theologie der Logienquelle (31983, [1972]) was ground-breaking in the German-speaking world. C. Heil now edits the series Documenta Q but has himself contributed various valuable studies on Q, especially concerning how Luke dealt with his Q-material, as discussed in his monograph Lukas und Q (2003). Similarly, M. Hölscher, Matthäus liest Q (2017) has published a dissertation on Matthew’s use of the Sayings Source.

In the German-speaking world one has to point to a huge number of narratological studies on Q, e.g., M. Labahn Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender: Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte (2010), or the publications by R. Zimmermann and his team: Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (2007; especially here the parables of Q), Metaphor, Narrative, and Parables in Q (2014), Puzzling the Parables of Jesus: Methods and Interpretation (2015); A. Bork Die Raumsemantik und Figurensemantik der Logienquelle (2015); D. Roth The Parables in Q (2018). Particular mention should also be made to the monographs of H. Scherer Königsvolk und Gotteskinder: Der Entwurf der sozialen Welt im Material der Traditio duplex (2016) and M. Ebner Jesus—ein Weisheitslehrer? (1998).

Older but still important literature includes E. Sevenich-Bax Israels Konfrontation mit dem letzten Boten der Weisheit: Form, Funktion und Interdependenz der Weisheitselemente in der Logienquelle (1993) and D. Kosch Die eschatologische Tora des Menschensohnes: Untersuchungen zur Rezeption der Stellung Jesu zur Tora in Q (1989).

2.2  Aliquid Novi?

This commentary owes much to all the aforementioned publications—my thanks to all the »Fellow Q-bies«! Yet the value of this publication lies in bringing together the parting of the ways between Jews and Christians and the sociological and theological positioning of the Sayings Source.36 The question of the parting of the ways has gained a lot of momentum in recent years. Recent publications underscore that the parting of Jews and Christians did not occur with one single moment in history. »[A]ny reference to a parting of the ways between Judaism and Christianity must further specify who parted, when they parted, and where this separation occurred.«37 Thus, Harlow specifies: »There can be no denying that the borderlines between Judaism and Christianity were not clearcut everywhere in the early centuries of the Common Era, or that the separation between them was uneven and complex.«38 Particularly: if one wants to place the Gospel of Matthew before the parting of the ways (as does much recent research39)—this has to be assumed a fortiori for the Sayings Source.40 The community behind the Sayings Source had not yet broken from their Jewish matrix—polemics against other Jews have to be seen as intra muros Jewish struggles.41 Thus, the Sayings Source is not only an interesting document of emerging Christianity, but even more a valuable document of Second Temple Judaism. Hence, Q can be seen as the missing link between Jesus the Jew and early Christianity.

Part II: Introductory Questions to Q

This commentary provides verse-by-verse exegesis of the Sayings Source. Given the limited space, an exhaustive discussion of introductory questions such as the date, location, and theological situation of the Sayings Source cannot be achieved here. I have however done this in an earlier publication: M. Tiwald, Die Logienquelle: Text, Kontext, Theologie (2016). This commentary offers in Part II an overview of the relevant issues that summarizes the results of more extensive discussion.

1.  The Time and Place of Q’s Composition

1.1  The Time of Q’s Literal Composition

The terminus post quem for the composition of Q is the date of Jesus’ death, presumably the year 30 CE.1 As a terminus ante quem one can note the composition of Matthew’s and Luke’s Gospels (i.e., the eighties of the first century CE), as both evangelists used a written copy of the Sayings Source. The most plausible date of Q’s written composition might be the early 60s of the first century CE—shortly before the outbreak of the Jewish War in 66 CE. Theories of an earlier dating in the forties2 have not found widespread approval, nor has the proposal of a later dating in the 70s.3

1.2  The Place of Composition

Most scholars opt for a composition of Q in the northern part of the Galilee in the Syro-Palestinian border region4 due to the references to Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum as provincial towns on the north-western shore of the sea of Galilee, but also to Tyre and Sidon. In contrast to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke—where the same places are named—the Sayings Source is still located in a largely rural context. »Matthew and Luke are Gospels oriented to urban settings.«5 In contrast to this, »Q presents us with a rural, Galilean Jewish gospel …«6 The Q parables particularly mirror the world of poor fishermen, small farmers, and common Galilean craftsmen. The rural perspective is dominant, urban life does not enter the picture.7 But even the mission techniques of Q hint at a rural background: Q 10 mentions a rural house-to-house mission. The small village acts as a whole it rejects or accepts a missionary.8 Additionally, the gesture of »shaking off the dust from your feet« (Q 10:11) can only be carried out in a small market place and not in a crowded polis.9

2.  The Community behind the Sayings Source

2.1  Q and Early Judaism

The question as to whether Q was still was rooted in a Jewish matrix has not yet found a unanimous conclusion in modern scholarship. Nevertheless, a still growing number of scholars argue that Q had not broken with Judaism and that all the conflicts have to be read as intra muros disputes.10 Jesus is depicted as a Torah-observant Jew who rejects the temptations of Satan in Q 4:1–13 by quoting the Torah. Although the Pharisees are heavily criticised for giving up »justice and mercy and faithfulness« by practising ritual prescriptions, the ritual Torah is not abolished, as Q 11:42 underlines: »But one has to do these without giving up the others.« And Q 16:17 emphasizes the eternal validity of the Torah: »But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one iota or one serif of the law to fall away.«

2.1.1  Jesus vs. Torah?

Generally, one has to admit that it is not the Torah but the figure of Jesus (as the expected Son of Man) who is the central point of orientation for Q.11 Nevertheless, eschatologically motivated groups in early Judaism saw their own theology as the only relevant concept of salvation. Only the members of their own group were endowed with the necessary eschatological knowledge for attaining salvation. Such exclusive eschatological knowledge is present in 1QpHab 8:2–3, where it is stated that Israelites only can be saved »by their belief in the teacher of righteousness« (ואמנתם במורה הצדק). This corresponds to a certain extent with the Pauline exclusivity of salvation through belief in Jesus Christ (Rom 3:22).12 A claim to exclusive salvific knowledge is also found in the First Book of Enoch and in the Fourth Book of Ezra: »[W]isdom is mediated through an eschatological revelation possessed by the chosen. Outsiders are damned because they lack or reject the revelation that enables them properly to observe divine Law and to read the signs of the times.«13 This eschatological knowledge is perceived as in-group knowledge revealed by special mediators of salvation, such as the figures of »Enoch«, »Ezra«, or the »Teacher of Righteousness«. Only by being part of this exclusive group and by accepting their theology can one obtain salvation. »The deceivers … wrongly claim to present the right interpretation of the Torah, sometimes in opposition to the ›true‹ interpretation presented by the author’s hero.«14 In accordance with such conceptions, Q 10:22 depicts Jesus as the one and only revealer and his disciples as endowed with privileged salvific knowledge revealed only to them (Q 10:23). Nevertheless, in Q these are only apocalyptical reflexes—other apocalyptical patterns are missing in the Sayings Source. Thus Q is not directed to an exclusive community consisting of the elect few but has a universalistic approach to salvation, as can be seen in Q 12:2–3: »Nothing is covered up that will not be exposed, or hidden that will not be made known. What I say to you in the dark, speak in the light; and what you hear whispered in your ear, proclaim on the rooftops.«

Summary: In eschatologically motivated groups within early Judaism the conception was widespread that a salvific figure endowed with heavenly wisdom would provide the correct interpretation of the Torah at the end of times. Such figures included Enoch, Ezra, the Teacher of Righteousness for the Qumran community, or Jesus for Christians. Thus, in Q there is no contrast between Jesus and the Torah.

2.1.2  Anti-Jewish Polemics in Q?

Recent studies on polemics in early Judaism have offered new insights: »The purpose for the polemic is not so much the rebuttal of the opponent as the edification of one’s own school. Polemic was primarily for internal consumption.«15 Thus, one has to take into consideration a »protreptic use of polemics«.16 Accordingly, the polemics against the Pharisees (Q 11:39–44), Galilean towns (Q 10:13–15), Jerusalem (Q 13:34–35), and »this generation« (Q 7:31–35; 11:16.29–30.49–51) do not hint at a definite rupture between the Sayings Source and Judaism but are intra muros quarrels between rival Jewish groups. »In spite of the exaggerated and fiery rhetoric of Q, in particular in its final redactional phase, there is good reason to suppose that Q and its partisans identified as Israel and had other Israelites in view as they constructed the document.«17

2.1.3  Gentile Mission in Q?

The question as to whether Q might have broken up with its Jewish roots stands in close connection to the question, if Q had already started a mission to the Gentiles. Also here a growing number of scholars maintain that this yet has not been the case. »… Q and its partisans identified as Israel and had other Israelites in view as they constructed the document. Although they were prepared to condemn their co-ethnic group, there is no evidence that they had fundamentally turned away to embrace non-Israelites.«18

At the Council of Jerusalem in 49 CE permission was given for a Gentile mission without circumcision.19 Nevertheless, the world was divided into a mission to the Jews and a mission to the Gentiles (Gal 2:7–9 and Acts 15:1–29). Jewish Christians still observed kashrut, Sabbath, and circumcision, and yet remained in commune with Judaism (cf. Acts 21:20–24). This is confirmed by Josephus who reports the Pharisaic protest against the execution of James the Just by the Sadducean High Priest Ananus II. (Josephus, Ant. 20:200).20 James, who strictly observed kashrut and ritual prescriptions of the Torah (which led to his surname »James the Just«), was regarded by the Pharisees as one of them. Seemingly, Pharisees considered strictly Torah-observant groups in early Christianity as closer to them than were the Sadducees—which finds support in Acts 21:20–21. At least until the First Jewish War one has to reckon with Torah-observant groups in Palestinian Christianity that—according to the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem—still abided by circumcision, kashrut, and Sabbath observance but also limited their mission to Jews alone. The community behind Q fits perfectly with this scheme. J. Kloppenborg rightly underscores: »… Q presupposed an exclusively Israelite environment where people naturally circumcised their sons, kept kashrut, and observed the Sabbath.«21

The gentiles mentioned in Q—always rather one-dimensional—only serve as a contrast to lack of faith in Israel. »The rhetorical strategy at work is shaming. In an agonistic culture such as that of ancient Palestine, to point out the exemplary faith of a non-Israelite is a way of shaming Israelites.«22 In Q such conceptions can be found in Q 11:31–32, where the »Queen of the South« and the »Men of Nineveh« will condemn Israel for its lack of faith at the day of judgement. In the same way the belief of the »Officer of Capernaum« (Q 7:9) is instrumentalized: »I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.« The expression »not even in Israel« highlights the inner-Jewish perspective assuming the superiority of Israel’s relation to God. Thus Tuckett rightly concludes: »… the existence of Gentile Christians seemed only to have been appealed to by Q as part of its continuing passionate plea to the Jewish people to respond positively to the Christian message. Any ›missionary‹ activity in Q seems confined to Judaism.«23

2.2  The Authors of Q

2.2.1  Itinerant Prophets …

In the German-speaking world there is a growing consensus that those behind Q were itinerant prophets with an ethos of following Jesus (Q 6:40) in emblematic poverty (Q 10:4), homelessness (Q 9:57–58), non-violence (Q 6:27–30), and eschatological expectation of God’s reign (Q 10:9). These missionaries saw their emblematic lifestyle as a prophetic sign of the imminent reign of God:24 »But seek his reign, and all these shall be given to you« (Q 12:30)—is the explanation for living in complete confidence of God’s provision. Thus Q-missionaries continue the emblematic lifestyle of Jesus himself (see below, IV: Excursus 1.4; Excursus 3.1.2, and Excursus 4).

2.2.2  … and Village Scribes

Itinerant missionaries, who according to Q 10:4 were not allowed to have any possessions, certainly could not have carried writing materials such as scrolls and ink. Additionally, one can posit that these Q-missionaries might have been—like Jesus himself—illiterate.25 Thus, J. Kloppenborg rightly concludes that Galilean κωμογραμματεῖς (kōmogrammateis), i.e. village scribes, might have framed the Sayings Source in the administrative language of Palestine—Koine Greek. »Those responsible for the framing of Q were likely low-level scribes—the sorts of agents who, in a setting where the vast majority of the population was illiterate, routinely served to mediate the relationship between the majority of the population and various levels of bureaucracy.«26 This thesis was further pursued by W. Arnal27 and G. Bazzana.28 Koine Greek was the administrative language in Palestine from the rule of the Ptolemies. Bazzana even makes out some Q-passages reflecting the »bureaucratic terminology« of Koine administrative language.29

The thesis of village scribes as composers of Q—mainly developed in the USA and Canada—does not necessarily contradict the German conception of itinerant prophets as the authorities behind Q. With the imminent expectation of Jesus’ return as the Son of Man, the first disciples did not see it as necessary to write down their traditions. In the thirty years from Jesus’ death in 30 CE to the written composition of Q in the 60s, these memories were carried on by itinerant missionaries, who used this material for their missionary sermons. Only in the process of the first generation dying off (cf. 1 Thess 4:13–18) and the growing tensions before the First Jewish War (starting 66 CE) did preserving the own traditions become vital. Translation into Greek and the framing of the oral material to a written composition was certainly the work of village scribes, although itinerant missionaries had kept these traditions alive over the previous thirty years. It seems quite plausible that the shift from orality to literacy also was linked with the transition from Aramaic to Greek. Most probably, there were no written Aramaic pre-stages of the Sayings Source,30 despite the fact that the traditions of Q had been transmitted orally in Aramaic for the preceding thirty years.

2.3  The Heritage Contained in Q

2.3.1  Q as Witness to Early Jesus Traditions

Especially in the Mark-Q Overlaps,31 the parallel yet literally independent passages in Q and Mark, there is testimony to orally transmitted collections of Jesus traditions. J. Schröter’s meticulous study Erinnerung an Jesu Worte: Studien zur Rezeption der Logienüberlieferung in Markus, Q und Thomas concludes that the Mark-Q Overlaps mirror an independent use of already existent and orally transmitted Jesus traditions.32 A literary dependency of Mark on Q cannot be shown, as Ch. Tuckett has demonstrated: »Mark and Q represent independent versions of common traditions.«33 Thus Q alongside the Gospel of Mark becomes »a distinctive stream, or ›trajectory‹, within early Christianity.«34 The oral performance of these traditions permitted individual wording—although maintaining astonishing similarity in content.35 This testifies to a high degree of the perseverance and tenacity of early, orally transmitted Jesus traditions.

Such assumptions fit well with the fact that orally-transmitted Jesus tradition can also be found in the Fourth Gospel (John). Ch. Tuckett rightly maintains: »[The] FG [sc. Fourth Gospel] certainly seems to share a significant, and distinctive, christological trajectory with Q, even if FG may be further ›advanced‹ along it.«36 And E. Broadhead confirms: »FG [sc. Fourth Gospel] and Q certainly root in the same pool of primitive Christian traditions.«37 Additionally, M. Theobald has singled out common sayings traditions in Q and John. Thus, one could talk about John-Q Overlaps.38 Theobald identifies the reason for such common sayings traditions in the existence of itinerant missionaries in the Syrian region: Q and the Fourth Gospel are rooted in the same socio-cultural milieu of itinerant missionaries in Syria-Palestine.39 Points of contact between Q and John stretch from the itinerant life­style of missionaries to similar sayings-traditions and corresponding theological patterns. Thus, the interpretation of Jesus’ death as atonement for sins is missing in Q and likewise not constitutive in the Gospel of John40—in contrast to other NT traditions. Certainly, neither John nor his Semeia-Source have drawn directly from the Sayings Source, but both testify to early Jesus traditions, orally transmitted in Syria-Palestine by itinerant missionaries.41

Even some Pauline traditions can be seen in connection with patterns of the Sayings Source. The Violent Fate of Prophets (see below, IV.3.3) can be found in Q and in 1 Thess 2:15–16,42 as can the topic of making Israel jealous by pointing to the belief of Gentiles (cf. Rom 11:11 and Q 7:9).43

Furthermore, we can detect points of contact between the Didache and the Sayings Source. In Did. 11:3–8 we encounter itinerant apostles and prophets with surprising similarities to the Mission Instruction in Q 10.44 In both cases itinerancy and poverty are seen as emblematic signs of Jesus-like authenticity (cf. the expression τρόποι κυρίου, the »lifestyle of the Lord«, in Did. 11:8). Likewise the expression euangelion in Did. 8:2, 11:3, and 15:3–4 focusses on the sayings of the kyrios but not on the kerygma of Jesus’ death and resurrection.45 In Q as in the Didache, Jesus’ death and resurrection are less important than Jesus’ sayings. Accordingly, K. Niederwimmer even has supposed that gospel-traditions behind the Didache go back to a »logia-collection similar to the Sayings Source«.46

Further parallels can be drawn between Q and the Gospel of Thomas.47Gos. Thom. was composed at the beginning of the second century CE and represents an early form of Gnosis. It is heavily debated as to whether Gos. Thom. is dependent on the Synoptic Gospels and if so, to what extent. Nearly half of the sayings do not have a parallel in the Synoptic Gospels—which is a hint at other sources. Concerning the material parallel to the Synoptics, one can detect dependencies of a literary and an oral nature (see above, I.1.2.4). Thus, the knowledge of at least one written Gospel plus the incorporation of oral traditions and one’s own sources seems to have the highest plausibility. Scholars maintain that in the question of dependency each logion of Gos. Thom. has to be treated separately. This gives an impression as to how intricate the methods of literary criticism can also become in the case of the Sayings Source. Even if the position of Gos. Thom. at this point remains unclear, this gospel unmistakably demonstrates that Sayings-Gospels actually did exist! The Gos. Thom. contains only unconnected Jesus logia without narrative. Perhaps the first oral stage of Q functioned in the same way—but in its written form Q had already obtained a narrative plot and a pervading theological vision.

To sum up: Traces of early sayings-traditions can be found outside of Q in the Gospel of Mark, the Gospel of John, the Didache, and the Gospel of Thomas, all traditions rooted in the Syro-Palestinian region.48 This testifies to a broader stream of early Jesus memories concentrated in oral collections of sayings. The »Sayings Source Q« as we can reconstruct it from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, was therefore the advanced version (i.e., framed and written down) of such oral collections—a snapshot in the variegated developments of Syro-Palestinian Jesus memories.

2.3.2  The Heritage of Q

After its use by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel of Mark was still handed down as an autonomous text. This was not the case with the Sayings Source. So one might jump to the hasty conclusion that Q was not as important as Mark.49 However, some scholars underscore that Matthew and Luke might have held Q in higher regard than they did Mark.

M. Konradt has emphasised that Matthew in the use of his sources was somewhat critical towards Mark—if not actually anti-Markan—because of Mark’s negative attitude towards the Jewish Law. By writing his own text he wanted to replace or even suppress Mark’s Gospel.50 A growing number of scholars maintain that the Gospel of Matthew advocated an unbroken validity of the Torah (including kashrut and circumcision) at least for Jewish Christianity.51 If this is correct, Konradt’s interpretation gains a high degree of plausibility. Although Matthew opts for a mission to the Gentiles without circumcision (unlike in Q), the complete Torah (including kashrut and circumcision) still remains valid for Jewish Christianity (like in Q, see below, III: Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18). Such a conception of two different lifestyles for Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians goes back to the Council of Jerusalem. The only difference now is that both groups are united in the one community behind Matthew. For Mathew kashrut remains in force for Jewish Christians—but it is only seen as the »least of the commands« (Matt 5:19), far behind the »greatest and first command« (Matt 22:38) to love one’s neighbour.52 J. Schröter comes to a similar conclusion when he emphasises that Q and Matthew are positioned on the same trajectory of Jewish Christianity that still upholds kashrut and ritual Torah. Thus, Matthew reads his Markan source in the light of Q and not vice versa.53 Additionally, if one wants to assume that the Matthean community—being situated somewhere in ­Syria54—was founded by itinerant missionaries behind the Sayings Source,55 this trajectory becomes even more likely. It seems quite feasible that in the wake of the First Jewish War the Q-community emigrated from Palestine (see below, III: Q 10:13–15) and found acceptance in their own affiliate foundation: the Matthean community. In this sense the community of Matthew not only theologically but also physically became the successor of Q and its heritage.56 Thus, the Sayings Source was not subdued to a »damnatio memoriae« as H. Scherer has supposed,57 but formed part of a constructive development, starting with a merely Jewish community in the Palestine Q-group and ending with a mixed community of Jews and Gentiles in the Syrian community of Matthew! It was not the wish to abandon the ritual Torah for Jewish Christians that prompted Matthew to combine Mark and Q, rather the new requirements of a mixed community, in which Jewish Christians still observed kashrut and ritual laws while Gentile Christians were not obliged to do so. Matthew simply adapts the regulations of the Council of Jerusalem (see above, II.2.1.3) to a mixed community by blending the Gospel of Mark with the Sayings Source.

For Luke the situation might have been exactly the other way round. While Matthew introduces Gentile Christianity into his Jewish conceptions, Luke emphasises the irrevocability of Jewish roots in Gentile Christianity. C. Heil has demonstrated how Luke inserts the Gentile church into the framework of Jewish salvation history.58 It seems that Luke was fighting against the type of tendencies that can be seen in a hyper-Pauline misinterpretation of Pauline theology or shortly later in the Gospel of Markion. Luke’s integration of Q into the Gospel of Mark advocates against the obliteration of Jewish roots by Gentile Christianity and guarantees the irrevocable validity of Jewish salvation history for all Christians.

3.  Extent and Structure of Q

It is commonly accepted that Luke subdivided his Q-material into blocks and inserted these into the framework of the Markan Gospel.59 Thus one can easily follow the Lukan sequence to derive the original order of sayings in Q. The passages reconstructed by this procedure result in an amazingly consistent text with an ongoing narrative plot (see above, II.3.4). The following chapters demonstrate that Q was not merely a loose collection of sayings but already formed a narrative unity.

The sequence of Q-sayings proposed here follows the CEQ with the subdivisions of the Hoffmann/Heil edition.60 Nevertheless, this commentary will not mechanically reproduce the CEQ but use it as an instrumentum laboris for independent judgement. Given the diverging ratings of the editors in every passage under discussion,61 this commentary has in some cases modified the text or the text-sequence (see below, II.3.1.2).

3.1  Deviations from the Lukan Sequence

3.1.1  The Q-Order Proposed by the CEQ

At certain points the CEQ offers a deviation from the Lukan sequence, »in cases where it became clear that the Matthean rather than the Lukan order is that of Q«.62 These are the following passages:

Q 4:5–8: The second and third temptations of Jesus are reconstructed according to the Matthean order.

Q 6:27–36 (Love Your Enemies, Renounce Violence, Golden Rule, Being Full of Mercy) partly follows the Lukan and partly the Matthean order. Both evangelists here have strong redactional tendencies, e.g., the Matthean antitheses and the Lukan topic of loving your enemies.

Q 11:16: Demanding a Sign is placed before The Sign of Jonah (Q 11:29–30)—following the Matthean sequence.

Q 11:39–52: The Woes against the Pharisees and Scribes of the Law and Wisdom’s Judgement on This Generation are regrouped into a new sequence following partly Luke and partly Matthew. Both evangelists here show strong redactional tendencies.

Q 12:33–34:Treasures in Heaven according to the CEQ follows the Matthean order and is found before Q 12:22b–31 (Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies). Unlike the CEQ, this commentary here maintains the Lukan sequence (for detailed argumentation see below, III: Q 12:22b–34).

In Q 13:28–29 verses 28 and 29 follow the Matthean order (Wailing and Gnashing of Teeth after the announcement of Those Coming from the East and the West).

Q 15:4.5a.7: The Lost Sheep is positioned according to the Matthean order after Against Tempting Little Ones (Q 17:1–2).

Q 17:33: Losing One’s Life fits perfectly after Q 14:26–27 (Hating One’s Family & Taking Up One’s Cross), thus following the Matthean order.

Q 17:37: Vultures around a Corpse comes directly after Q 17:23–24 (The Son of Man Like Lightning) adopting the Matthean order.

3.1.2  Modifications of the CEQ-Sequence

In addition to the aforementioned modifications, this commentary has made further amendments to the CEQ concerning the placement of Q 16:16–18. In these verses Matthew and Luke again show strong redactional tendencies, which make a clear decision impossible. Redactional interests alone will not allow a final decision.63 Hence, this commentary took the narrative coherence of Q into consideration and placed the sayings of Q 16 where they seemed most fitting within the plot of Q. This leads to the following results:

Q 16:16: According to the narratological trajectory proposed here, the Baptist is only mentioned in the first narrative cycle. At the end of this cycle he reappears in Q 7:18–35, but in the rest of Q is never mentioned again. Thus, Q 16:16 might have originally been found after Q 7:24–28, following the Matthean order. In a very close vote the editors of the CEQ opted for leaving this verse within the Lukan order.64 This commentary argues otherwise and places Q 16:16 after Q 7:24–28.

Q 16:17: The position of this verse is indebted to heavy redactional tendencies by both Matthew and Luke: Matt 5:18 uses the saying as the introduction to his antitheses,65 Luke 16:17 inserts it in his topic »righteous use of possessions«.66 With a certain plausibility this saying already in Q formed part of the polemics against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law, thus following the Matthean order by in the context of Q 11:39–52 (after Q 11:33/Matt 5:15 and before Q 12:58/Matt 5:25). If so, than Matthew’s use of this logion as the introduction to his antitheses (Matt 5:18) was already prefigured in Q. Thus the Woes against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law in Q 11:42–52 remain in continuity with Matt 5:20: »For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.«

Luke on the other hand has interwoven this saying with his topic »righteous use of possessions«, something that Luke sees as the fulfilment of the Torah.67 If Q 16:17 already stood in connection with woes against the riches of the Pharisees (Q 11:39b: »full of plunder and dissipation«), then Luke has taken this idea from the Sayings Source.

Q 16:18 most seemingly follows directly after 16:17, as indeed Matt 5:18 and 5:32 are in close proximity.68

Q 16:13 remains in the Lukan sequence, as the saying fits perfectly here with the narrative progress of Q.

3.2  Extent of the Q-Text

Apart from the above mentioned exceptions, this commentary follows the CEQ.69 This text can be seen as a ›conservative‹ reconstruction, free from extravagant speculations.70 Generally, only double tradition has been chosen for reconstruction. Only two pericopae here have been added: Fire on the Earth (Q 12:49) and The Lost Coin (Q 15:8–10)—both without a Matthean parallel.71Fire on the Earth indeed fits well with the context of Q 12:51.53 (Bringing not Peace but the Sword). The Lost Coin also fits perfectly after the Parable of the Lost Sheep. According to the voting of the CEQ, both texts belonged to Q. Nevertheless, in both cases one could easily omit these passages without spoiling the narrative structure of Q. Thus the question as to whether either text was part of Q seems to be a side issue.

In contrast to the CEQ, the pericope Judging the Kairos (Q 12:54–56) is not deemed part Q. Especially the problematic textual basis of Matt 16:2aβ–3 suggests that this text never formed part of the Matthean Gospel and thus is Lukan Sondergut.72 Consequently, this text was only given a plausibility of {C} by the editors of the CEQ73 and will be omitted from this commentary.

Also diverging form the CEQ, the pericope The Kingdom of God is Among You (Q 17:20–21) is not deemed to have been part of Q. The editors of Q were also unsure: P. Hoffmann voted with a plausibility of {B} contra, J. Robinson and J. Kloppenborg only with {C} pro.74 With a very detailed analysis C. Heil, H. Fleddermann, and G. Harb have convincingly argued against this text belonging to Q.75

3.3  The Structure of the Q-Text

The structure underlying the Q-text generally follows the reconstruction of Hoffmann/Heil.76 Nevertheless, the subdivisions are modified and enlarged. According to this scheme, Q presents us with seven narrative cycles, the cycles consist of smaller narrative units, which comprise single pericopae.

Narrative Cycle 1: The Two Protagonists (Q 3:2b–7:35): John the Baptist and Jesus of Nazareth

Narrative Unit 1: The Message of John (Q 3:2b–17)

The Introduction of John (Q 3:2b–3a)John’s Announcement of Judgement (Q 3:7–9)John and the One to Come (Q 3:16b–17)

Narrative Unit 2: The Baptism and Testing of Jesus (Q 3:21–22; 4:1–13.16)

The Baptism of Jesus (Q 3,21–22)The Temptations of Jesus (Q 4:1–13)Nazara (Q 4:16)

Narrative Unit 3: Jesus’ Programmatic Address (Q 6:20–49)

Beatitudes (Q 6:20–23)Love Your Enemies & Renounce Violence (Q 6:27–28.35cd.29–30)The Golden Rule & Being Full of Mercy (Q 6:31–32.34.36)Not Judging (Q 6:37–38)The Blind Leading the Blind (Q 6:39)The Disciple and the Teacher (Q 6:40)The Speck and the Beam (Q 6:41–42)The Tree Is Known by its Fruit (Q 6:43–45)Not Just Saying Master, Master (Q 6:46)Built on Rock or Sand (Q 6:47–49)

Narrative Unit 4: The Gentile Officer’s Faith in Jesus’ Word (Q 7:1–10)

Narrative Unit 5: John and Jesus (Q 7:18–35 and 16:16)

John’s Inquiry about the One to Come (Q 7:18–19.22–23)John—More than a Prophet (Q 7:24–28)The Reign of God is Violated (Q 16:16)For and Against John (Q 7:29–30)This Generation and the Children of Wisdom (Q 7:31–35)

Narrative Cycle 2: The Missionaries (Q 9:57–11:13): The Messengers of the Son of Man

Narrative Unit 1: Radical Discipleship (Q 9:57–60)

Foxes and Birds (Q 9:57–58)Leave the Dead to Bury their Own Dead! (Q 9:59–60)

Narrative Unit 2: Instruction for Mission (Q 10:2–16)

Workers for the Harvest (Q 10:2)Sheep among Wolves (Q 10:3)Rule for Provisions: Mission in Emblematic Poverty (Q 10:4)House-Mission and Town-Mission (Q 10:5–12)Woes against Galilean Towns (Q 10:13–15)Whoever Takes You in Takes Me in (Q 10:16)

Narrative Unit 3: The Special Revelation of the Son (Q 10:21–24)

Hidden from Sages, Revealed to Children (Q 10:21)Knowing the Father through the Son (Q 10:22)Blessed are the Eyes that See What You See (Q 10:23–24)

Narrative Unit 4: The Trustful Prayer of the Disciples (Q 11:2b–4.9–13)

The Lord’s Prayer (Q 11:2b–4)Ask and It will be Given to You (Q 11:9–13)

Narrative Cycle 3: The Adversaries (Q 11:14–52; 16:17–18): Natural and Supernatural Opponents

Narrative Unit 1: Jesus’ Victory over the Demons (Q 11:14–26)

Casting out Demons by the Finger of God (Q 11:14–15.17–20)Burgling a Strong Person (Q 11:21–22)The One not with Me (Q 11:23)The Return of the Unclean Spirit (Q 11:24–26)

Narrative Unit 2: The Judgement over »This Generation« (Q 11:16.29–32)

The Sign of Jonah (Q 11:16.29–30)The Queen of the South and the Men of Nineveh (Q 11:31–32)

Narrative Unit 3: Let your Light Shine! (Q 11:33–35)

The Light on the Lampstand (Q 11:33)The Light within You (Q 11:34–35)

Narrative Unit 4: Against Pharisees and Scribes of the Law (Q 16:17–18, 11:14–52)

No Iota and no Serif of the Law to Fall (Q 16:17)Prohibition of Divorce and Remarriage (Q 16:18)Woes against the Pharisees (Q 11:42.39b.41.43–44)Woes against the Scribes of the Law (Q 11:46b.52.47–48)Wisdom’s Judgment on »This Generation« (Q 11:49–51)

Narrative Cycle 4: Consequences for the Community (Q 12:2–13:21): Confidence in Distress

Narrative Unit 1: Proclaiming Jesus without Fear (Q 12:2–12)

Uncovering What Is Hidden (Q 12:2–3)Not Fearing the Body’s Death (Q 12:4–5)