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.
reexAMINING Q2: SoN oF God CHrISToLoGy 73
serves to ground the ensuing instruction in the Q group’s reality at
the time of the sermon’s composition in a context of persecution. The
second section employs the Imitatio Dei principle to appeal to a non-
violent response in these difficult circumstances. The fact that this
discussion was necessary suggests that some of the group’s members
may have struggled to come up with an adequate response to their per-
secution. Beginning in 6,37 the subject matter shifts to a different type
of a challenge: the accusation speech and its associated parable
address a specific conflict among the group’s members. Finally, the
sermon’s closing section summarizes the apparent group’s collective
failure to follow the example of Jesus by means of a general accusa-
tion (6,46) and a judgment parable (6,47-49).
It is well-known that, following Kloppenborg’s allocation of
6,20b-49 to Q1, the sermon became an important part of the most
recent quest for the historical Jesus. The primary consequence of this
development for our discussion was the considerable suppression of
the sermon’s Christology in those strands of contemporary New Testa-
ment scholarship which interpreted Kloppenborg’s Q1 stratum and its
image of the historical Jesus as sapiential. Specifically, Q 6,22-23 was
struck from the sermon as presumably a Q2 redactional interpolation,
and the Christological title ku,rie in 6,46 was interpreted to mean
“master” as opposed to “Lord” 31. I will address those matters first,
showing that they may not have taken all of the existing evidence into
full account. Following that, I will highlight the Christological con-
nections between 6,20b-49 and the Q2 stratum.
I begin with 6,22-23. The problem posed by its existence to the
notion of a strictly sapiential Q1 layer is obvious: the fourth beatitude
clearly identifies Jesus with the apocalyptic o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou:
(Q 6,22) Blessed are you when they insult and persecute you, and say
every kind of evil against you e[neken tou/ ui`ou/ avnqrw,pou.
(Q 6,23) Be glad and exult, for vast is your reward in heaven. For this
is how they persecuted the prophets who were before you 32.
eventually, the entire beatitude Q 6,22-23 became assigned by
Kloppenborg and a number of others to Q’s redaction 33. But the argu-
31
See n. 7 above.
32
roBINSoN – HoFFMANN – KLoppeNBorG, Critical Edition of Q, 50-51.
33
d.r. CATCHpoLe, The Quest for Q (edinburgh 1993) 91; JACoBSoN, First
Gospel, 99-101, 108; KLoppeNBorG VerBIN, Excavating Q, 202; C.M. TUCKeTT,
Q and the History of Early Christianity. Studies on Q (edinburgh 1996) 179.