reexAMINING Q2: SoN oF God CHrISToLoGy 63 and Lucan scholars, and is a presupposition for this investigation 2. This essay, of course, as its very title already suggests, goes be- yond the mere notion of Q’s existence, approaching it as a text that can be reconstructed. Here, the inference has been made since B.H. Streeter that the third evangelist tends to follow the order of Mark’s Gospel more faithfully, in which respect he differs from Matthew 3. even more importantly, Luke tends not to conflate Mark and Q, whereas Matthew is quite fond of precisely that. Finally, there is actu- ally a considerable degree of agreement between Matthew’s and Luke’s sequencing of the double tradition, rendering the reconstruc- tion of at least portions of Q fairly secure 4. Combined, these infer- ences not only deliver an important principle for the reconstruction of Q’s sequence but also help account for some of the stranger sequences and transitions in Luke’s Gospel by attributing them to the evangelist’s source. Based on these and other pertinent considerations, the task of reconstructing Q was undertaken by the International Q project (henceforth IQp) and published as The Critical Edition of Q 5. To be sure, owing to the case-by-case nature of the task and the limited num- ber of scholars involved, the Critical Edition of Q probably does not represent the final say in Q’s reconstruction, and indeed in this essay a few minor amendments will be proposed. one certainly hopes that current and future generations of scholars will have the opportunity to contribute to the project. even so, the foundation laid by IQp repre- sents a quantum leap in New Testament research, enabling the study of Q as a fully fledged document to which one may apply the tools of literary criticism. As such, it allows for the study of Q’s compositional history and redactional layers, with conclusions ranging from the origins of the Judeo-Christian community behind the document to its depiction of the historical Jesus. 2 Thus F. BoVoN, Luke 1. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN 2002) 6-8; J.A. FITzMyer, The Gospel According to Luke I–IX (AB 28; Garden City, Ny 1981) 63-81; U. LUz, Matthew 1–7. A Commentary (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN 2007) 18-22. 3 B.H. STreeTer, “on the original order of Q”, Oxford Studies in the Synoptic Problem. (ed. W. SANdAy) (oxford 1911) 141-164. 4 For a detailed analysis of the scholarship and methodology behind the reconstruction of Q’s order, see J.S. KLoppeNBorG, Formation of Q. Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Minneapolis, MN 1987) 64-80. 5 J.M. roBINSoN – p. HoFFMANN – J.S. KLoppeNBorG, The Critical Edition of Q. Synopsis including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with english, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN 2000).