78 oLeGS ANdreJeVS recent historical Jesus quest which has been above all based on the reading of Kloppenborg’s Q1 as sapiential and on 6,20-49 as its main text. If the case made in this essay indeed stands, renewed attention would need to be paid to the remaining Q1 material and its image of the historical Jesus. Secondly, my tradition-historical trajectory of the Q group invites the following pressing question: was the Q2 polemical platform, with Israel’s priests and sages seemingly left without access to God’s revelation, intended as a warrant for the Gentile mission? Could there be further clues in the document’s redactional material to indicate that the Q2 author shared a similar outlook to paul whose contemporary he must have been? The answers should shed further light on the tradition-historical trajectory of formative Christianity. Carthage College olegs ANdreJeVS 2001 Alford park drive Kenosha, WI 53140 U.S.A. Summary This essay analyzes three important Christological texts in the reconstructed syn- optic 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 tradition- historical 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.