66 oLeGS ANdreJeVS to reflect the changing circumstance of the community. Consequently, in this essay I take as my point of departure the premise that every tex- tual unit presently found in the document was employed by a Q1 or Q2 author to advance a specific compositional objective and reflects a particular Sitz im Leben. determining the relation of those units to the historical Jesus is not the task of this essay and must be undertaken elsewhere 10. The tradition-historical conclusions reached here will be limited to the history of the Judeo-Christian group which I regard as responsible for the composition of Q1 and Q2. I now turn to the Christology of 10,21-22, its portrayal of Jesus as God’s unique Son and its relation to the polemical framework of the Q2 compositional layer. In Kloppenborg’s research this text was taken to represent a separate Christological category which one may call “Sophia Christology”. Here, Kloppenborg’s work was influenced by several early publications by James M. robinson 11. of special impor- tance are two essays by robinson: “ΛΟΓΟΙ ΣΟΦΩΝ: on the Gattung of Q” (1964), and “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels” (1975). robinson’s argument can be summarized as follows: (a) in Q’s formative material Jesus was conceptualized as a sage, (b) in the redactional layers of Q Jesus became redefined as the coming Son of Man, (c) these contrasting Christological images were unified in Q’s final literary framework by the identification of Jesus as also God’s Wisdom, Sophia 12. The resultant phenomenon, Sophia Christology, acted for robinson as a necessary conceptual link be- tween the apocalyptic Son of Man of the redactional layers of Q and the sapiential Jesus of Q1. In Formation of Q, the above conclusions were affirmed by Klop- penborg 13. of particular relevance to this essay is the presumable association of Jesus with Sophia. The text in which robinson and Kloppenborg saw this development take place is Q 10,21-22, which describes Jesus as o` ui`o,j: 10 After all, Kloppenborg himself cautions that the stratification of Q’s units should not be automatically taken as an indication of their genesis. KLoppeNBorG, Formation, 244-245. 11 J.M. roBINSoN, “Building Blocks in the Social History of Q”, The Sayings Gospel Q. Collected essays by James M. robinson (eds. C. HeIL – J. VerHey- deN) (BeTL 189; Leuven 2005) 508. 12 roBINSoN, “ΛΟΓΟΙ ΣΟΦΩΝ: on the Gattung of Q”, The Sayings Gospel Q, 37, 73-74; roBINSoN, “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels”, The Sayings Gospel Q, 123-126, 130. 13 KLoppeNBorG, Formation, 27-34, 102-170, 171-245, 317-328.