The Sayings Source

A Commentary on Q

Markus Tiwald

• Publisher: Kohlhammer Verlag
• Year: 2020
• eBook ISBN: 9783170374409
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Commentary

The so-called "Sayings Source" ("Q") contains traditions that can be found in the narrative gospels of Matthew and Luke. Situated within both early Judaism and the burgeoning Jesus movement, the sayings waver somewhere between the historical Jesus and the Christian communities. Following the reconstructed text of the "Critical Edition of Q", Tiwald brings a new study on the narratology of Q as a coherent attempt to answer the question: Who is Jesus?

Part I: Introduction to this Commentary

This book is the English translation of my German commentary on the Sayings Source (Kommentar zur Logienquelle, Kohlhammer 2019)—enlarged with some passages of my introduction to Q (Die Logienquelle. Text, Kontext und Theologie der Quelle Q, Kohlhammer 2016). As the general questions concerning the »Two Document Hypothesis« and the existence of the »Sayings Source« are discussed exhaustively in this introduction, this commentary only offers a short résumé to these questions (and only refers in footnotes to a more extensive analysis).

1. Preliminary Questions

1.1 The Existence of the Sayings Source

The »Two Document Hypothesis« (henceforth: 2DH) teaches us that Matthew and Luke, in the process of writing their gospels, not only used the Gospel of Mark but also a second document, the so-called »Sayings Source«—or simply »Q« (from the German Quelle »source«). Notwithstanding the fact that this source is not preserved for us as a manuscript but merely reconstructed out of the parallel passages in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (after subtracting material from the Gospel of Mark), one nevertheless discovers a text with a certain narrato­logical and theological consistency.¹ Recent research has demonstrated convincingly that Q had a consistent narratological flow with a coherent theological plot.² This fits well with the exhaustive review of recent synoptic studies by A. Lindemann, who states that the Q-hypothesis can still be seen as the most convincing response to this problem.³ In spite of all remaining questions,⁴ the assumption of the existence of a »Sayings Source« as second literary document for the Gospels of Matthew and Luke still seems the most viable way to resolve the Synoptic Problem.

1.2 The Reconstruction of Q

Up for more debate than the general existence of Q is the question as to how it is to be reconstructed.

1.2.1 The Critical Edition of Q

In 2000 the Critical Edition of Q (CEQ) was published, edited by J. M. Robinson, P. Hoffmann, J. S. Kloppenborg and M. Moreland. This recon­struction summarises the results of the International Q-Project (IQP), founded in 1989.⁵ The CEQ presents a quite »conservative« reconstruction, free from any far-reaching speculations.⁶ In addition to this, the ongoing project Documenta Q in 32 volumes (twelve have been published to date) presents the complete literature on the reconstruction of the respective verses of Q from the last three centuries (C19^th to C21^st).

The CEQ thus offers a quite reliable reconstruction. Nevertheless, the editors see their work as the ongoing task of reconstruction, as J. Robinson puts it in the introduction to the CEQ (lxxi): »It is not to be assumed that the present critical text is a last word. … The … present volume … is intended to facilitate the study of Q, and thus to stimulate this ongoing process. … It is thus to be hoped that the refinement of the text of Q will continue unabated …«⁷

1.2.2 Narratological Access to Q

In recent research, comprehensive narratological studies on the Sayings Source have contradicted the often-repeated view that Q might only have been a loose collection of sayings and not a consistent literary document—merely some sort of loose-leaf notebook without narrative or theological coherence.⁸ M. Labahn’s exhaustive monography Der Gekommene als Wiederkommender: Die Logienquelle als erzählte Geschichte (2010) has clearly demonstrated that Q is not an accidental collection of randomly acquired sayings⁹—comparable for example to the Gospel of Thomas—but that Q has a continuous narrative structure and a literary plot.¹⁰ In this sense J. Kloppenborg had already claimed: »… we can speak of Q as a ›literary unity‹ …«¹¹ Certainly, Q mainly consist of »sayings and speeches«, yet this material nevertheless constitutes a »narratology of sayings«.¹² One has to reckon with an argumentative unity of Q.¹³ Exactly here the Mainz Approach of Metaphorology and Narratology in the Sayings Source (2014) by R. Zimmermann and his team has consequences for further work with Q:¹⁴

… how exactly can one consider or work with a text, which does not exist, or to put it more precisely, which does not exist as a manuscript? … Is there a way to analyse a text without having the exact wording? … Here, the analysis of metaphors and narrative criticism has proven itself useful in many fields. … Even if the Q text cannot be reconstructed with absolute certainty from the readings in Matthew and Luke, it is possible to make plausible statements about its composition.

This method is further described by A. Bork Die Raumsemantik und Figurensemantik der Logienquelle (2015) as an intertextual approach to the text that no longer seeks a literal reconstruction of Q but tries to understand the big narratological patterns of Matthew and Luke’s second source.¹⁵ Thus, D. Roth describes the approach as follows:¹⁶

… when Matthew and Luke incorporated Q into their Gospels, they did not simply pick up on the words of their source, but drew out a whole realm of metaphors and images as well as narratival und sociocultural elements. … Thus, Q as a source cannot be reduced simply to the words of Q and at the same time, a specific, word-for-word reconstructed Q text is not necessarily a prerequisite for analyzing Q as a source.

Nevertheless, it was again J. Kloppenborg (2000) who had already paved the way for such an approach:¹⁷

… it must be kept in mind that there is already in the double tradition approximately 50 percent verbal agreement even if it is still sometimes necessary to decide the syntax of the sentence. For example, in Q 15:4 … This text is typical. It illustrates the fact that disagreement in vocabulary notwith­standing, the general sense of the Q text is clear.

The most recent narratological and sociological studies on Q prove the accuracy of this approach. H. Scherer Königsvolk und Gotteskinder (2016) underscores that the material of Q offers an independent and theologically consistent strain of Jesus tradition.¹⁸

1.2.3 Consequences for this Commentary

In accordance with the aforementioned Narratological Approach to the Sayings Source, one can conclude that Q’s narratological plot can be understood even without a complete and correct reconstruction of Q. Nevertheless, the approach taken here by no means seeks to abandon the project of the reconstruction of Q. This commentary builds on the meticulous work accomplished by the Critical Edition of Q. Even if this reconstruction can never reach a reliability of 100%, it nonetheless offers an accurate basis for this commentary. Hence this study offers a balanced mix of both elements. On the one hand a text-based exegesis without an indulgence in the exuberant details of reconstruction, and on the other hand a narratological approach without ignoring the issue of the base text. Thus, the quest for a correct reconstruction of Q is not dismissed but—thanks to the reliable results of the CEQ—does not represent the primary concern of this commentary.

Here the two points of H. Scherer’s critique of the Mainz Approach are certainly helpful. Firstly, she emphasizes that an exclusive reliance on the narrative approach in ignoring all forms of text reconstruction might lead to a projection of our own narratological ideas onto the text (»Zu groß ist dabei die Gefahr, die tatsächlich vorhandenen Daten mit unbewussten narrative Eintragungen anzureichern und so den gesuchten ›Sinn‹ der Texte schnell zu justieren«¹⁹). Secondly, she rightly criticises the approach of A. Bork for ignoring the cultural and sociological context to focus solely on narratological patterns. Both criticsms hit the nail on the head and shall be reflected in this commentary. 1) The CEQ offers a reliable text basis permitting this commentary to focus mainly on the theological patterns of Q (but without ignoring questions of text reconstruction). 2) The sociocultural and socio­theological wort background of the Sayings Source are main points of particular interest in this commentary: Q shall be read against the backdrop of early Judaism and placed within the picture of Second Temple Palestine (cf. the Excursi in Part IV).²⁰

1.2.4 Textual Fluidity as an Essential Feature of Q

In reconstructing »the« Sayings Source, one must not forget that the text underwent a period of thirty years growth with development in different stages.²¹ Perhaps one can even assume with G. Theißen that a primary core of logia-collections dates back to the time of Jesus himself, when he sent out his disciples as missionaries (cf. Mark 6:7 // Luke 10:1). Here the master obviously teaches his emissaries the basic thrust of his message which they can proclaim. Such texts might have formed the core of later sayings-traditions.²² After Jesus’ resurrection, the disciples continued their missionary work by adopting and adapting Jesus’ sayings.

About 60 CE the oral traditions of the Sayings Source were framed within a literary document, written down by village scribes. Nevertheless, this by no means ended the phase of oral fluidity—modern approaches reckon with a longer time span of secondary orality: parallel to the written transmission, oral performance of the text was still current.²³ At that time most people were illiterate, and scrolls with a written text of the length of Q were quite expensive and far too bulky to be carried over long distances. Hence missionaries, even after the text had been written down, could still rely on their memorized versions of the sayings. Accordingly, even the genre of a missionary sermon must not be imagined as the reading aloud of a fixed text, but as a dramatical mise en scene. It is not the verbatim repetition of a »canonical« text which was important, but the inspired presentation of the missionaries’ convictions.²⁴ »[I]n a situation where literacy was very low, texts were ›performed‹ rather than read in the way that modern literate readers approach texts.«²⁵ Some variant readings thus might not be deliberate redactions or copy errors, but simply diverging »performances«.²⁶ The aforementioned Narratological Approach to the Sayings Source thus is not only a makeshift solution for not having the original text, but the only ›genre‹-appropriate approach to Q.

1.2.5 Textual Basis for this Commentary

Generally, the CEQ offers the textual basis for this commentary. Never­theless, in some cases (which will be explained in detail) the commentary proposes an alternative reconstruction. This is in accordance with the wishes of the editors of the CEQ, who did not provide a complete text, but offered ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Imprint
• Acknowledgements
• Part I: Introduction to this Commentary
• Part II: Introductory Questions to Q
• Part III: Commentary to the Sayings Source
• Part IV: Excursi
• Bibliography
• Index