reexAMINING Q2: SoN oF God CHrISToLoGy 75 “master/teacher” or “master of a slave” in each individual instance. Aside from the fact that these assumptions needlessly complicate the use of the title ku,rioj in Q, they also meet with the following problem: a closer inspection of the instances in which yHWH is designated as ku,rioj reveals that Jesus is depicted as a subordinate figure in virtually every one of them (4,1-13; 10,2-22; 13,34-35), with the exception of the aphoristic 16,13. Moreover, in two of those instances Jesus is presented as yHWH’s ui`o,j (4,1-13; 10,21-22), and in the third one as o` evrco,menoj evn ovno,mati kuri,ou (13,35) whereby the precise nature of his subordination to yHWH is specified. This does not look like the work of a sloppy author who painted in broad strokes and utilized the title ku,rioj liberally, leaving it up to the reader to sort out the various nuances. rather, the author’s use of ku,rioj to designate both yHWH and Jesus suggests a carefully calibrated depiction of a transfer of authority. At a minimum, it is impossible to read 10,21-22 other than as delegating the full authority of o` ku,rioj yHWH to o` ui`oj, Jesus, which, of course, makes Jesus ku,rioj in a quite similar sense of the term. The sermon’s structure reflects this Christological bracketing (6,22- 23; 6,46). one observes a similar dynamic at work here as, on a somewhat smaller scale, in 10,21-22 and 4,1-13. The sermon’s second section (6,35cd; 6,29-36) is framed with two references to the Imitatio Dei principle (6,35c-d; 6,36) 40. Inside that inclusio are two originally inde- pendent and likely composite units, 6,29-30/Matt 5,41 and 6,31-34 41. However, this section accounts only for a third of the sermon’s considerable length. It is preceded by 6,20b-28 which as we have seen exhibits a Christological focus and explains the group’s persecution as a consequence of following Jesus the Son of Man. And it is followed by 6,37-49, which in its entirety is concerned with the correct observing of the commands of ku,rioj Jesus (6,46). The transition from 6,36 40 Luke’s author combines Q 6,35c-d and 6,36, but Luke 6,32-34 suggests that (a) Luke 6,35a-b is Luker, (b) that Luke 6,35c-d was relocated by Luke from its original Q position. This is indicated by the fact that Luke 6,35a-b summarizes the preceding Q/Luke 6,32, Luker 6,33, Luker 6,34 in that order. Because Q/Luke 6,35c-d, which is a clause, is now attached in the Lukan sermon to a Luker command this obviously could not have been its Q location. It would thus seem that the original location of the command is following Q 6,27, based on the evidence of Matt 5,43-45. 41 Matt 5,41, though not preserved by Luke, probably belongs in Q. LUz, Matthew 1–7, 271; roBINSoN – HoFFMANN – KLoppeNBorG, Critical Edition of Q, 62-63. For the composite nature of 6,29-36, see KLoppeNBorG, Formation, 173-181 (with reference to other authors).