The nature and background of sQ

1. DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTICS

   These sayings contain no significant narrative elements. Most are, or contain, aphorisms. There are similitudes, but no full parables.

   The document's Jewish background is clear from its references to God, prayer, the law and a variety of Old Testament heroes. Also it has slighting references to Gentiles (Mk 10:42; Mt 5:47; 6:32; 10:5). There would be no time for a mission to them (Mt 10:23). The most important theological concepts are the kingdom of God and the coming of the Son of man. There is no trace of the theology of Paul.

   The author had a special interest in praising the poor (Lk 6:20b) and denouncing the rich (Eye of needle). There is no reference to miracles. ^[1]

   The frequent mention of obstacles, the default of "against" in 'For/against', and the references to "few" (Mt 7:14; 9:37; 22:14) suggest a minority struggling against powerful rivals. Thus sQ matches a scenario of Christian Jews under threat on one side from more orthodox Jews, and on the other side from Pauline Christians.
   
   

2. DATE OF COMPOSITION

   With neither a mission to the Gentiles, nor any Pauline influence, nor any hint of the Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, sQ must have been published ca. 40-50 CE. Confirmation can be sought in the evidence that some of Paul's rivals possessed copies of sQ and were using them in their preaching at Corinth.
   • In his first letter to the Corinthians Paul mentions "words" in conjunction with "wisdom" in a derogatory sense (1:17, 2:1,4,13). Paul's meaning is not entirely clear. But because on occasion he was quite capable of disguising the target of his criticism (Gal 2:6), we should seriously consider the possibility that "plausible words of wisdom" (1 Cor 2:4) might be a veiled reference to the document sQ, or at least to preaching by Paul's rivals Peter and Apollos based on sQ. If the latter was produced by the earliest followers of Jesus (as we will argue below), such an attitude could easily have arisen from Paul's rivalry with them, and his aversion to showing any dependence on them (1 Cor 11:23; Gal 2:6).
   • One of the most memorable sayings in sQ is the one about a wise man building a house on a rock, and a foolish man building a house on sand (Mt 7:24-27). The words "wise" and "foolish" are not in the Lukan equivalent (Lk 6:47-49), but even if they were not in the text of sQ, they were certainly implied by it and would probably have been used in any preaching based on it. Paul advocates building on a sound foundation in 1 Cor 3:10ff., and goes on to draw a contrast between wise and foolish in 1 Cor 3:18-19 and 4:10, where he takes the side of the foolish.
   • Those who said: "I belong to Cephas" (1 Cor 1:12) would have been very tempted to take advantage of the possible word-play in the phrase "on rock" in Mt 7:24 ("rock" = Greek PETRA = Aramaic 'Cephas'). This would explain why Paul was keen to emphasize that there is no other foundation than Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11).
   • Paul's sarcastic reference to those who are already filled (1 Cor 4:8) and who are already reigning (EBASILEUSATE), appears to be a reference to Lk 6:20-21 (assigned to sQ), which mentions the kingdom (BASILEIA) and those who are hungry now, but will be satisfied. ^[2]
   • In 1 Cor 2:2 Paul asserts that he is not interested in "lofty words or wisdom" (preaching based on sQ ?), but only in Christ crucified. In a later letter he expands on this, encouraging the Corinthians to take no interest at all in the earthly life of Jesus (2 Cor 5:16). That Paul does sometimes use Jesus' sayings, and even acknowledge making use of them (e.g. 1 Cor 9:14, c.f. Luke10:7, sQ), shows only that like the rest of humankind he was not always consistent.
   As 1 Corinthians was written ca. 55 CE, this evidence is consistent with a date of ca. 40-50 CE for sQ.
   
   

3. LANGUAGE

   Q is generally considered to have been written in Greek. However it does not automatically follow that sQ should be assumed to have been in Greek. Many of the passages which are widely quoted as showing extensive linguistic agreements (e.g. Mt 3:7-10 // Lk 3:7-9; Mt 12:43-45 // Lk 11:24-26; Mt 23:37-39 // Lk 13:34-35) were not in sQ. Neither was the Temptation story, so the fact that its quotations are dependent on the LXX ^[3] has no bearing on the language of sQ.

   An Aramaic source also seems to be essential to explain several apparent translation variants, e.g. "leap" in Lk 6:23 as an interpretive rendering of an Aramaic word correctly translated as "rejoice" in Mt 5:12 (sic). ^[4]

   The definitive argument that the original language of Q was probably Greek is set out by Kloppenborg. ^[5] However with a distinctly non-random set of pericopae removed from Q, Kloppenborg's conclusion does not necessarily carry over to sQ. For absent from sQ are the two cases of ARA, in Q 11:20 and 12:42, and the only two probable instances of genitive absolute, in Q 7:24 and 11:14, both of which Kloppenborg used to support his conclusion regarding Q. These and other factors could well sway the balance towards an Aramaic original for sQ.
   Aramaic would also help to explain the demise of sQ as a distinct document. For as the geographical centre of Christianity moved westwards, so its proportion of Aramaic speakers must have decreased.
   
   

4. PLACE OF ORIGIN

   Acts presents a picture of James the brother of Jesus, the leader of the Christian Jews in Jerusalem, as an authoritarian leader sending out written instructions for Gentile converts (15:19 f.) and even telling Paul what to do (21:23 f.). Paul writes about false brethren sent to "spy out our freedom" (Gal 2:4) and indicates that even Peter had to toe the line (Gal 2:11-12). It is therefore unlikely that an important document by Christian Jews published in the decade 40-50 CE could have originated anywhere except in Jerusalem under the authority of James. The document's rural background (birds, flowers etc.) is adequately explained by the strong Markan tradition of Jesus' Galilean origin. Naturally Jesus' original disciples knew his sayings better than anyone else. Also their first language is usually taken to have been Aramaic.

   For confirmation of the connection with James, we turn to the document itself. The sQ sayings open with "Blessed are you poor, for yours is the kingdom of God". ^[6] This beatitude looks distinctly odd to open the sayings. Why the poor?. However in Gal 2:10 Paul wrote: "only they would have us remember the poor". Clearly a concern for the poor was extremely important to James, Peter and John, the pillars of the Jesus community in Jerusalem. Moreover we know this was not just a casual remark, for Paul put a lot of effort into organizing and delivering a collection for the poor in Jerusalem (2 Cor chs. 8-9; Rom 15:25). Placing "Blessed are you poor" at the beginning of the collection of Jesus' sayings was an appropriate way of expressing this special concern.
   
   

5. CONCLUSION

   sQ was a collection of sayings attributed to Jesus and thus belonged to the same genre as the extant Gospel of Thomas. Its theology was centred on the kingdom of God and the coming of the Son of man. It contained four distinct sections, in each of which the sayings were carefully arranged, thus inhibiting major editorial revision.

   Finally Acts and Galatians are united in their testimony that James was the most authoritative figure in the early Jesus movement. Consequently we can be sure that this collection of sayings could not have been issued without his authorization. The recognition of his indirect contribution to the synoptic gospels is long overdue!

Notes

1. "heal the sick" is present in both Mt 10:8 and Lk 10:9. But it could not have been in sQ, firstly because the saying C5 rules out Jesus' use of miracles ("no sign will be given..."), and secondly because there is no indication in sQ that Jesus himself had been a healer.

2. D.C.Allison, The Jesus Tradition in Q (Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity, 1997) 55, n.244

3. U.Schnelle, The History and Theology of the New Testament Writings (ET, London: SCM, 1998) 187

4. J.S.Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2000) 77. In criticizing this suggestion of M.Black, Kloppenborg apparently misses Black's point that mere redactional preference would not have been enough to cause Au_Luke to break the parallel with CARHTE. Kloppenborg also casts doubt on Au_Luke's knowledge of Aramaic (Ibid,75-76). However when editing Mark and replacing TON KANANAION (Mk 3:18) by TON KALOUMENON ZHLWTHS (Lk 6:15), Au_Luke showed that he recognized KANANAION as a transliteration from the Aramaic, and that he knew how to translate it into Greek.

5. J.S.Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987) 51-64.

6. I accept the majority view that the Lukan form represents the original saying.

Go back up one level

Return to home page

Go to next page