82 Paul Foster associations of Christ/Messiah language, Tuckett makes the following observation: There is also the fact that “Messiah” is a very Jewish term, and as we shall see Q represents a very “Jewish” stratum of the tradition, so that the absence of the term from Q is all the more striking. Q’s non-use of the term may be purely coincidental. It would perhaps be rather bold to deduce from the non-use of the term in Q that the idea of Jesus’ “Messiahship” was actually problematic for the Q Christians (4). Thus while reasons for non-use are not easily explained, the absence of the term from Q is striking. There may be a theological reason for the reservation in using the term, but this is not immediately obvious. The title kuvrio" does gain fleeting reference in Q. However, these scattered occurrences need to be viewed against the preponderance of usages in the Pauline letters (5). In Paul’s writings “Lord” is a preferred and privileged form of address reserved for the use of adherents of his scattered communities about the eastern Mediterranean world. However, in Q the most positive use of the title occurs in Q 7,6, where the centurion requesting the healing of his servant addresses Jesus using the vocative, kuvrie. It may be of significance that this form of appellation has been placed on the lips of a Gentile who is seeking a miracle from Jesus. The use of the term in Q 9,59 appears to be little more than a polite form of address (6). In this sense it may align with the use by the centurion where it connoted a degree of deference, but not necessarily homage. Perhaps the most striking example of kuvrio" terminology applied to Jesus in Q is double vocative kuvrie kuvrie of Q 6,46. Here the sense is negative, questioning the attitude of those who make such a plaintive and elevated cry, but their actions do not align with such a declaration, tiv dev me kalei'te: kuvrie kuvrie, kai; ouj poiei'te a} levgw; (Q 6,46). This discussion betrays a certain antipathy towards those who use this title, but who, at least from the perspective of the one who penned this question, fail to do what they have been instructed by Jesus. This appears to show that Q considers the faith of those who use this title as being defective, at least in some sense. Consequently, this scepticism about groups of Christians who use the title (4) C.M. TUCKETT, Q and the History of Early Christianity. Studies on Q (Edinburgh 1996) 214. (5) The title kuvrio" is used in Q on thirteen occasions: Q 6,46; 7,6; 9,59; 12,42.43.45.46; 13,25; 14,21; 19,15.16.18.21. This number is based upon the reconstruction of Q as presented in J.M. ROBINSON – P. HOFFMANN – J.S. KLOPPENBORG (eds.), The Critical Edition of Q (Minneapolis, MN – Leuven 2000). Of these thirteen occurrences only the first three refer directly to Jesus, the last ten all occur in Q parables to denote a householder, or other authority figure. (6) Although the vital word kurivo" is omitted in some important manuscripts of Lk 9,59 such as B* D pc sys, its inclusion in the overwhelming majority of the manuscript tradition, ∏45.75 ? A B2 C L W Q X Y 0181 f1.13 33 ˜ lat syc.p.h co, including the early papyri makes the inclusion of this term the much more likely reading in the Lukan context. The decision of Fitzmyer to omit the term with little discussion appears strange, and perhaps betrays a reliance on the printed text of NA25, J.A. FITZMYER, The Gospel according to Luke (AB 28; New York 1981) II, 833. However, while the term is the more likely reading in Luke, an even stronger case can be mounted for Q, since the term is found in the Matthean parallel, Matt 8,21.