None of this need be too serious, were it not that there are those who wish to press for more far-reaching conclusions with regard to Q.42 I have in mind particularly the influential thesis of John Kloppenborg and those who follow it. For one thing, Kloppenborg shares the widespread conviction that behind Q stands a Q community.43 That in itself is hardly objectionable: a sociological perspective
37. Statistics in R. Morgenthaler, Statistische Synopse (Zürich: Gotthelf, 1971) 258-61; examples and table in Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q 56-64. The point is given particular emphasis by T. Bergemann, Q auf dem Prüfstand: Die Zuordnung des Mat/Lk-Stoffeszu Q am Beispiel der Bergpredigt (FRLANT 158; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1993).
38. The extensive use of double square brackets (denoting uncertainty as to the Q reading) in passages outside those listed above (n. 29) by Critical Edition, underlines the point.
39. E.g., which 'q' version of Matt. 12.28/Luke 11.20 came from 'Q'? Plausibility judgments have to be made concerning both Matthew's and Luke's theologies, as well as Q's, before a decision can be reached, and the case can be argued either way with more or less equal facility (see below, chapter 12 n. 365).
42. Having made my point, I will revert to the simple nomenclature Q rather than persist with 'Q'. I will follow the convention of citing Q passages according to Luke; e.g., Q 3:7-10 = Luke 3:7-10/Matt. 3:7-9.
43. H. E. Töd t, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition (21963; ET London: SCM, 1965) 246-69 is usually credited with starting this trend. For example, Kloppenborg cites S. Schulz, 'Die Gottesherrschaft ist nahe herbeigekommen (Mt 10,7/Lk 10,9). Der kerygmatische Entwurf der Q-Gemeinde Syrien', in Das Wort und die Wörter, G. Friedrich FS (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973) 57-67: 'Behind Q there is a special sphere of tradition with an independent kerygmatic tradition, i.e., a distinct community which preserved and continued to proclaim Jesus' message in the post-
Was this article helpful?