Olegs Andrejevs, «Reexamining Q2: Son of God Christology in Q’s Redactional Layer.», Vol. 97 (2016) 62-78
This essay analyzes three important Christological texts in the reconstructed synoptic sayings source Q: 4,1-13 (the temptation legend), 6,20b-49 (the Q sermon) and 10,21-22 (the thanksgiving of Jesus). According to the current consensus in Q studies, these texts belong to three different compositional strata and reflect different theological concerns. I coordinate them in the document’s redactional layer (Q2), demonstrating their compatibility on literary-critical and traditionhistorical grounds. My hypothesis is that these texts provide the necessary Christological framework for Q2’s depiction of Jesus as the messianic Son of Man and Lord by stressing his identity as God’s unique Son.
68 oLeGS ANdreJeVS
accounting for this problem would be by moving 10,21-22 to a subse-
quent compositional layer, Q3 18. But Kloppenborg himself has coun-
tered that solution, rightly in my view, by highlighting that 10,21-22
is compatible with Q2 on polemical grounds 19. And so we are faced
with the following paradox: 10,21-22 is actually compatible with Q2
except for its presumed use of Sophia Christology, a concept that does
not rely on an explicit identification. As we will see, this imposition
of Sophia’s mythologoumena on 10,21-22, while certainly not implau-
sible, obscures the Christological category more immediately engaged
by this text.
To properly understand the Christology of 10,21-22 in relation to
the rest of the document we must now examine its immediate context
and the intended function in Q’s “mission speech” section. In Q’s re-
constructed text, 10,21-22 belongs to a complex sequence of material
beginning in 10,2 and extending through 10,24. In that sequence it
is possible to identify the presence of both compositional layers. Q1
material consists of the mission instruction proper, viz. the material
addressed to the missionaries in 10,2-12, and 10,16. At the time of the
Q2 compositional stage that material appears to have been edited by
means of two redactional interpolations:
Q 10,2-24 – the “mission speech” section
Q1 Q2
10,2-12
10,13-15
10,16
10,21-22
10,23-24
As the above table shows, the first Q2 interpolation (10,13-15) sep-
arated the Q1 warning, now found in 10,16, from its original context
in 10,2-12 in order to accuse three specific Galilean towns: Chorazin,
Bethsaida and Capernaum 20. It seems probable that by the time of Q2’s
18
This is precisely what I attempted to do in my doctoral dissertation. I have
since come to regard that solution as unsatisfactory, especially as I began
to question the existence of a Q3 compositional layer.
19
KLoppeNBorG, Formation, 201-203.
20
KLoppeNBorG, Formation, 195-196. Although Kloppenborg regards 10,12
as a redactional construction, I am skeptical of its Q2 origin; form-critically 10,12