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