Kloppenborg's stratification of Q

KLOPPENBORG’S STRATIFICATION OF Q AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR HISTORICAL JESUS STUDIES[1]

This article was originally published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, June 2003.

DENNIS INGOLFSLAND
CROWN COLLEGE

I. INTRODUCTION

When John Kloppenborg (now John Kloppenborg Verbin) wrote The Formation of Q in 1987, it was impossible to foresee that this book would become a foundational study for some of the more radical presentations of Jesus as a non-apocalyptic Jewish Cynic.[2] Although Kloppenborg distances himself from the Jewish Cynic thesis, his work has been used not only to support that thesis but to revise Christian origins.[3] For example, Ron Cameron, discussing Kloppenborg’s work says that “Q demonstrates that there is no need to appeal to the crucified and risen Christ in order to imagine the origins of Christianity.”[4]

Kloppenborg himself believes that his hypothesis supports the idea that the Q community had a soteriology fundamentally different than the Pauline soteriology. Keylock summarizes the issue this way: “For Kloppenborg, Q represents a form of Christianity in Galilee that was ignorant of the Pauline tradition, [and] knew nothing of Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection…”[5]

Considering the implications of Kloppenborg’s hypothesis for the historical study of Jesus, this article will provide an analysis of Kloppenborg’s thesis as stated primarily in his book, The Formation of Q,[6] but also with reference to his later work, Excavating Q, published in 2000.[7]
II. THE STRATIFICATION OF Q IN A NUTSHELL

Agreeing with Bultmann that Q was “a transitional stage between the un-messianic preaching of Jesus and the fully self-conscious kerygma of the Hellenistic churches,” [8] Kloppenborg insists that there are only two ways to account for this transition.[9] Either there were two kerygmas existing together in the same churches, or there were at least two kerygmas existing in different churches.[10] Since the core of Q’s proclamation centers on the parousia and not on the passion, Kloppenborg concludes that the earliest churches were proclaiming fundamentally different messages about Jesus, indeed, that Q “had an understanding of soteriology which was at variance with the passion kerygma.”[11]

Kloppenborg analyzes the arguments of scholars who propose that Q originally contained a passion narrative, found their arguments to be less than convincing and concluded that “The thesis of a Q passion account must accordingly be rejected.”[12]

Assuming that virtually all of Q can be reconstructed, Kloppenborg cites Arland Jacobson who argued that Q is pervaded with deuteronomistic theology.[13] According to Kloppenborg, this demonstrates that “Q was organized and redacted from a coherent theological perspective.”[14] Since Q contains both sapiential and apocalyptic forms, Kloppenborg asks whether Q underwent a “redactional intervention” such that one of these elements was formative and the other secondary.[15]

Assuming the answer is yes, Kloppenborg proposes a method to determine the principles used in the composition of clusters of Q sayings and their association into a whole.[16] He then meticulously analyzes the pericopae in Q separating the sapiential from the prophetic elements,[17] proposing that Q began as a sapiential document (often cited as Q1), was later revised with the addition of prophetic/judgment/apocalyptic passages (Q2), and was finally revised once more with the addition of narrative passages (Q3).

III. THE EXISTENCE AND EXTENT OF Q

Kloppenborg’s case depends (1) on the assumption of Q’s existence, (2) on arguments that nearly all of Q can be recovered, and (3) on methodology used to separate sapiential from prophetic/judgment material. This critique will largely bypass the issue of Q’s existence, focusing instead on arguments Kloppenborg presents for the extent of Q and on his methodology for separating Q into strata.

1. The existence of Q. While some might argue that Kloppenborg’s theory is invalid because Q is “only” a hypothesis, or that Q did not exist, Kloppenborg would counter that all we have with regard to the synoptic problem are hypotheses and that the Two Document Hypothesis has been more convincing to most scholars than any other option.[18] His point is well taken. On the other hand, the increasing scholarly disagreement is such that the Two Document Hypothesis cannot be regarded as established fact.[19] Significant uncertainty remains.[20]

For those who hold the Two Document Hypothesis, this uncertainty alone is not a reason to discard Kloppenborg’s thesis. The real problem is the number of hypotheses Kloppenborg builds on top of this increasingly questionable foundation.[21]

2. The extent of Q. Kloppenborg argues at some length for the thesis that virtually all of Q has been reconstructed.[22] This is significant because if virtually all of Q has been reconstructed, it can be argued that Q did not contain a passion narrative and was indifferent to the Pauline kerygma.

On the other hand, if Q was originally more extensive than what can be reconstructed, it would be difficult to know whether Q ever contained the passion narrative or kerygma, and it would, therefore, be invalid to use Q as evidence for the circulation of two substantially different kerygmas in the early church. As Kloppenborg himself says, “The question of reconstruction is crucial if, for example there is any possibility that Q contained elements (such as extended narratives) it would require a radical reassessment of the character of Q”[23] (emphasis mine).
Kloppenborg cites two reasons scholars can be sure that virtually all of Q can be reconstructed. First, it can be assumed that Matthew and Luke would have treated Q as they did Mark.[24] In other words, just as Matthew and Luke included virtually all of Mark in their gospels, they can also be assumed to have included virtually all of Q.

There are, however, good reasons for questioning the validity of this assumption, not the least of which are Kloppenborg’s own arguments. For example, in Excavating Q, Kloppenborg argued against a theory of Wilhelm Bussman by saying Bussman’s hypothesis “rested on the assumption that each evangelist would always treat his sources in a uniform way.”[25] Kloppenborg disagrees, saying that this assumption is not supported by the way Matthew and Luke treated Mark.[26] Later in a different context, Kloppenborg notes: “We should not assume a priori, for example, that Luke would automatically treat a document lacking a clearly narrative structure in the same way the he treated a narrative document like Mark.”[27]

So while, in Excavating Q, Kloppenborg argues in two separate contexts that it cannot be assumed that Matthew and Luke would have treated Q as they did Mark, his entire thesis is based to a large extent on his assumption stated in The Formation of Q, that Matthew and Luke treated Q as they did Mark.

At the risk of creating a straw man one might assume that If pressed for an explanation on this apparent contradiction, Kloppenborg could possibly explain that on a micro level Matthew and Luke treat Mark differently than Q while on a macro level they treat Mark and Q the same by including virtually all of Mark and Q into their Gospels. Such an argument, however, would amount to special pleading since we do not know how much of Q they included, and it would not change the fact that it cannot simply be assumed that any author would use two sources the same way.

The second reason Kloppenborg cites for believing that virtually all of Q can be recovered is Kilpatrick’s argument that the disappearance of Q was explicable only on the assumption that it was almost completely absorbed in Matthew and Luke.[28] Some have objected, however, that by this logic Mark might have been expected to disappear also since virtually all of Mark is included in Matthew. In Excavating Q, Kloppenborg responds to this objection by citing Luhrmann who proposed that Mark’s survival and Q’s disappearance are simply accidents of history in that Mark’s gospel happened to be carried to Egypt where it was copied and Q was not. Further, responding to Dunn who argued that Q may have disappeared for theological reasons, Kloppenborg writes, “In fact we do not know why Q disappeared.”[29]

Kloppenborg is right, of course, but he seems unaware that in arguing that Q’s disappearance may have been an accident of history and by admitting that we frankly do not know why Q disappeared, he has contradicted one of his own primary reasons for assuming that we know the extent of Q, i.e. that the disappearance of Q “was explicable only on the assumption that it was almost completely absorbed in Matthew and Luke” (emphasis mine).[30] Therefore, the main reasons Kloppenborg proposes for assuming that virtually all of Q can be reconstructed have been successfully refuted by his own arguments.

3. A passion account? In The Formation of Q, Kloppenborg interacts with the arguments of Bundy,[31] Burkitt, [32] Hirsh,[33] Taylor and Schneider[34] who attempt to show that elements of the passion accounts in Mark and Luke (L) should be considered part of Q. After critiquing these arguments and finding them less than convincing, Kloppenborg concludes that “The thesis of a Q passion account must accordingly be rejected.”[35]

Finding flaws in an opponent’s arguments, however, is not the same as proving ones own position. For example, alien conspiracy theorists may find flaws in some of the government’s explanations for UFO’s, but they have not thereby proven that aliens exist. Similarly, the fact that Kloppenborg finds his opponents’ arguments unconvincing, does not mean he has thereby demonstrated that Q never had a passion account.[36]

The main evidence Kloppenborg provides for the lack of a passion account in Q is the assumption that virtually all of Q has been recovered, and that it is lacking a passion account. As seen above, however, Kloppenborg’s case for the extent of Q has been found to be invalid by his own arguments.[37]

Even if Q did not have a passion account, however, the assumption that the Q community did not, therefore, know of or believe in the passion and resurrection of Jesus is quite problematic.

(1) Philip Jenkins cites early mystery religions and quotations from Clement of Alexandria and Origen to point out that ancient religious groups were sometimes hesitant to spell out the full extent of their beliefs to the general public in writing. Jenkins argues that it is, therefore, invalid to assume that those who produced Q or the Gospel of Thomas did not believe in the resurrection of Jesus, for example, simply because they did not mention it in their writings.[38]

(2) Arland Hultgren argues that while references to the cross and resurrection are lacking in the papers of Martin Luther King, no one would suggest that King did not know of the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus. Kloppenborg counters saying this is due to genre and that the Q people apparently had other legitimating strategies which did not include direct appeals to Jesus’ resurrection.”[39] But this sidesteps the issue. The fact is that while King had ample opportunity to use references to Jesus’ passion and resurrection, he apparently fails to do so. Likewise, even assuming that virtually all of Q has been recovered, the fact that it contains no passion narrative would not necessarily mean that the “Q community” knew nothing of, or was indifferent to the passion story.

The point is that Kloppenborg’s arguments that Q did not contain a passion narrative have been shown to be invalid. However, even if Q did not have a passion narrative, it would be invalid to cite that omission as evidence that the Q communities did not know or believe in the passion of Jesus.

4. Kerygma? As seen above, Kloppenborg followed Bultmann in assuming that Q was “a transitional stage between the un-messianic preaching of Jesus and the fully self-conscious kerygma of the Hellenistic churches.” [40] Since the core of Q’s proclamation centers on the parousia and not on the passion, Kloppenborg concludes that the earliest churches were proclaiming fundamentally different messages about Jesus.[41]

a. It is important to note that Kloppenborg did not demonstrate that Bultmann was right about Q being a transitional stage. He simply assumed that Bultmann was right and built on that assumption. Several recent studies have shown on historical grounds, however, that there is every reason to believe that Jesus’ preaching was in fact messianic.[42] If Jesus’ preaching was messianic, the basis for postulating a transition from un-messianic preaching to kerygma is moot, and one of the main reasons for assuming redaction in the first place is weakened or eliminated.[43]

b. If Q was originally longer than what is preserved by Matthew and Luke, there would be no way of knowing whether it originally contained references to the kerygma or not. Nevertheless, assuming, for the sake of argument, that Matthew and Luke preserved virtually all of Q, the fact that an early Christian community might produce a document focusing on Jesus’ teachings and second coming in no way demonstrates that this community did not believe in the kerygma.

Suppose, for example, that the only letter of Paul that survived was his “harsh letter,” reconstructed from Second Corinthians 10:1 - 13:10. Scholars might conclude from that reconstruction that Paul did not believe in Jesus’ atoning death or in salvation by grace through faith because he never mentions it. Such an assumption would of course be incorrect. [44]

This analogy is not perfect, of course, but it illustrates the point that to assume that we can know with any degree of confidence, what a community did not believe based on what they did not include in a single short document, is an argument from silence, and, when arguing against Hultgren, Kloppenborg himself made the point that, “Arguments from silence are precarious…All that we have to go on is what the text of Q itself offers.” [45]

IV. METHODOLOGY

1. Analytic tools. After discussing “models for redactional analysis” proposed by Luhrmann and Jacobson, including attention to “grammatical shifts, breaks in the train of thought, shifts in audience, [and] shifts in tradition or theology,”[46] Kloppenborg proposes two “tools” by which to analyze Q for redactional activity: “The first analytic tool is the determination of the compositional principles which guide the juxtaposition of originally independent sayings and groups of sayings. Naturally this presupposes and builds upon the results from form-critical analysis.[47]

It is important to note that this “first analytic tool” is not a method for determining whether various groups of sayings have been edited together. Instead, this “tool” appears to assume from the outset that that the various units of sayings in Q were in fact juxtaposed by one or more editors. This, however, is precisely the thesis that Kloppenborg is proposing to demonstrate.

The second analytic tool is that, “…redactional or compositional activity may be seen in insertions and glosses…Such insertions afford us a tool by which to stratify successive redactions of Q.”[48]

Although form critics have imagined for decades that they can separate insertions or glosses from original documents, the fact that they often significantly disagree among themselves about what is original and what is the result of redaction, would seem to indicate that their conclusions are somewhat less than certain. While there will always be disagreement regarding the degree of certainty involved in form critical conclusions, the point is that Kloppenborg’s assertion that redactional activity can be seen in insertions, is hardly an objective “tool.” This will be seen more clearly in the examples discussed later in this paper.

2. The relation of prophetic/judgment to sapiential. What this second “tool” apparently means in practice is that if a prophetic or judgment saying appears in an otherwise sapiential section, it can be regarded as evidence that the saying was a secondary redaction. Q 6:20b-49, Q 10:2-16, Q 12:2-12, Q 13:24-30[49] are among the passages Kloppenborg regards as sapiential but which contain prophetic or judgment elements --and in each case the prophetic/judgment parts are seen to be redactional. But as Collins notes:

There is no generic incompatibility, however, between these speeches and an apocalyptic worldview. Accordingly the sharp redaction-critical separation of the sapiential speeches from the announcement of judgment should be viewed with some suspicion and will need to be evaluated critically.[50]

Kloppenborg responds sharply to Collins’ criticism saying:

This is a straw man argument since I did not argue that wisdom was incompatible
with apocalyptic or prophecy and expressly rejected ‘generic purity’
arguments. The argument for the stratification of Q does not rest on
presumptions about the (in)compatibility of wisdom and apocalyptic…it depends on
literary not theological factors. The question is not whether wisdom and
apocalyptic, or wisdom and prophecy, can subsist in the same document; of course
they can and do in various documents. The question is, when diverse
elements subsist in a document, how does one understand the literary and generic
relationship among the various elements? Collin’s misunderstanding is
tediously repeated by others: Horsley 1994:736; Witherington 1994:216; D.
Allison 1997:4-5.[51]

The fact, however, that so many scholars have “misunderstood” Kloppenborg should cause him to wonder whether he has mis-communicated. Nevertheless, Kloppenborg’s first analytic tool was to determine “the compositional principles which guide the juxtaposition of originally independent sayings and groups of sayings.”[52] It is hard to avoid the conclusion that this principle assumes from the outset that prophetic and sapiential sayings were in fact originally independent and apparently somehow incompatible in the first place.

Further, as discussed below, the fact that forms of “prophetic judgment sayings” [53] and the motif of “imminence of judgment” [54]are two of the three indications that redaction has occurred makes it hard to understand how Kloppenborg can deny that he has no assumption of fundamental incompatibility. If there is nothing unusual or incompatible about prophetic elements in sapiential passages, why should the presence of these forms and motifs to be considered indications of redaction in the first place?

Finally, as seen above, in Formation of Q Kloppenborg argued that Matthew and Luke would have likely treated Q as they did Mark.[55] In Excavating Q, however, Kloppenborg argued the exact opposite.[56] In Formation of Q Kloppenborg argued that the disappearance of Q was explicable only on the basis that it was almost entirely absorbed by Matthew and Luke,[57] but in Excavating Q he argued that the reason for Q’s disappearance is not known.[58]

Using the same kind of assumptions found in The Formation of Q, a case could be made that the same person would not write such apparently blatant contradictions, and that it is more likely that an editor inserted the contradictory passages in response to attacks made against Kloppenborg’s original thesis.

While absurd, this illustration serves to emphasize the point that if a meticulous scholar like Kloppenborg could write what appears to be such flatly contradictory statements, how much more likely is it that ancient authors, who did not have the benefit of word processors, occasionally wrote things that appear to have “grammatical shifts, breaks in the train of thought, shifts in audience,”[59] etc.? Such subtle breaks or shifts do not necessarily indicate redaction any more than Kloppenborg’s apparent contradictions.

Kloppenborg’s methodological assumptions and analytical tools appear, therefore, to be subjective at best. And while Kloppenborg strongly denies any fundamental incompatibility between sapiential and prophetic, his first analytic tool and his assumptions about common features (below) seems to presuppose incompatibility.

3. Common features. After detailed discussion of judgment complexes in Q, Kloppenborg concludes that these sayings “reveal several common features which invite the conclusion that these four blocks belong to the same redactional stratum.” [60] The first common feature is projected audience. While the actual audience is the Q community, the projected audience is those who oppose the Q people.[61] The second common feature is form. Most common are “prophetic judgment sayings and apocalyptic words” which are stated in the form of chreia.[62] The third common feature is motif. Common motifs include the “imminence of judgment,” the parousia, and lack of repentance.[63]

While this method might sound good in theory, numerous problems are evident. (1) The issue of projected audience is not as certain as Kloppenborg might seem to imply. For example, in Horsley’s opinion,

…only one of the five clusters of sayings, Luke 11:14-16, 29-32, 39-52, appears
to be directed at the “outgroup” of this gene,,a,” or impenitent opponents as
the offensive or implied audience. All or most of the sets of sayings in
the other four complexes are addressed directly to the Q people themselves. [64]

(2) The separation of sapiential and prophetic elements into neat hermetically sealed units is not quite as clean-cut as Kloppenborg’s arguments seem to imply. In an otherwise generally positive assessment of Kloppenborg, Arland Jacobson noted,

It is striking that the layers are not as neatly distinct as they are made to seem. For example, the figure of Wisdom appears in the second rather than the first (“sapiential”) layer; arguably prophetic sayings occur in the sapiential layer (e.g., Q 6:23-23b; 12:11-12); and chria occur in the first recension (Q 9:57-62-the “best” chriae in Q 12:13-14).[65]

(3) Although Kloppenborg treats the projected audience, forms and motifs as if they were separate features, in many cases one is simply the necessary corollary of the other. Any passage which is prophetic in form might well contain the motif of imminent judgment and be directed to outsiders. To treat these as three separate pieces of evidence for redaction seems questionable at best.

V. EXAMPLES OF METHODOLOGY

Having separated the judgment sayings from the rest of Q, Kloppenborg points out that a significant part of what remains consists of sapiential themes, notwithstanding several important interpolations that are “controlled by motifs related to the coming of the Son of Man and the judgment of the impenitent.” Horsley comments, “In order to purify the stratum it must be purged of prophetic sayings, which are dismissed as later insertions.”[66] A few selected examples will be discussed below to show how this is done in practice.

1. Q 6:36-49. According to Kloppenborg Q 6:36-49 clearly belongs to the sapiential stratum because of its “predominantly sapiential idiom,” the fact that it contains a mild rebuke rather than a severe rebuke, and that “there is no compelling reason to suppose that 6:39-42 is formulated with outsiders and opponents in mind….”[67]

Kloppenborg divides this passage up into three sections: 6:36-38, 6:39-45, and 6:46-49 which has the effect of lessening the impact of the theme of judgment in the passage. Taken as a whole, however, this passage begins and ends with the theme of judgment. It begins with instruction to “Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not and you will not be condemned…” (Q6:37) and ends with a strong warning about the great ruin of the house--which could certainly be read as judgmental if not apocalyptic. The impression that these judgment sayings form an inclusio is confirmed by the fact that the body of the passage speaks of (1) the condemnation of those who judge the speck in another’s eye while maintaining the log in their own eye, (2) the rebuke, “You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye…” (Q 6:42), and (3) the question, “Why do you call me “Lord, Lord’ and not do what I tell you?” Some have understood this as an address to the eschatological judge[68]--a view Kloppenborg even admits is true for the Gospel of Matthew but, he says, does not fits Q’s respectful address. The passage could easily be read as directed to the “hypocrites” outside the community who were judging the Q people without first taking the log out of their own eye--the great ruin of their “house” is predicted.

Therefore, while the passage may be “predominantly sapiential in form,” (first stratum) it is arguably controlled by the motif of judgment and could easily be read as being directed toward those outside the community (second stratum). These factors would at least seem to demonstrate the subjective nature of Kloppenborg’s thesis, if not undermining it altogether.
2. Q 9:57-62. According to Kloppenborg, Q 9:57-62 consists of three chreiae[69] the first of which (Q 9:57-58) speaks of Jesus as the Son of Man.[70] Son of Man sayings are normally part of the second, or judgment, stratum, but that is problematic here since, according to Kloppenborg, Q 9:57-62 is clearly sapiential in nature. Kloppenborg solves this problem by proposing two reasons to assume that Q 9:57-58 was not originally part of the sapiential stratum. (1) It has a “differing logical structure and, (2) it circulated as an independent saying in the Gospel of Thomas 86.

The differing logical structure has to do with the fact that whereas the second (Q9:58-60) and third (Q9:61-62) chreia proclaim discipleship to be more important than family obligations or Elijah’s calling,[71] the first chreia (Q 9:57-58) doesn’t fit because “is in fact a statement about the Son of Man.”[72] Q 9:57-58 reads: “And as they were going along the road, someone said to him, I will follow you wherever you go.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Foxes have holes, and birds of the sky have nests; but the Son of man has nowhere to lay his head,” (ERV).

It is probable, however, that only those who are already convinced that the Son of Man passage does not belong here, will see a different logical structure. Q 9:57-58 could easily be read to indicate that discipleship is more important than the security of having a home, in which case it fits the logical structure of Q 9:57-62 perfectly. However, even assuming for the sake of argument, that there is a break in the logic of this text, it could be argued that since the supposed editor of Q apparently didn’t notice any problem with the logic of this passage, it is equally possible that an original author saw no problem with the logic either, in which case there is no reason to assume redaction.

Kloppenborg’s second reason for proposing that Q 5 9:57-58 was not originally part of the sapiential stratum is that it “appears to have circulated as an independent saying” as evidenced by a similar passage in the Gospel of Thomas 86[73] which reads, “Jesus said [The foxes have their holes] and the birds have their nests, but the son of man has no place to lay his head and rest” (Gos. Thom. 86, cf. Mark 8:20; Luke 9:58).

Kloppenborg assumes, but does not demonstrate, that a saying in the Gospel of Thomas was originally independent. If the writer of the Gospel of Thomas borrowed from the canonical Gospels this argument becomes invalid.[74]

Even assuming that Q 9:57-58 was an independent saying, however, there is no reason to suppose that its inclusion in any document necessarily implies that someone has edited that document. It would be just as easy for the original author to have included the saying in Q as it would for an editor to have added it to a subsequent revision.

3. Q 10:2-16. Although Kloppenborg classifies Q 10:2-16 as a sapiential passage, he notes that the references to harvest in Q10:2 “is distinctive since it applies to missionary activity a metaphor usually found in the context of apocalyptic judgment.”[75] Further, the passage includes a very harsh element of judgment:[76]

I tell you it shall be more tolerable on that day for Sodom than for that city. Woe to you Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For it the mighty works done in you had been done in ‘Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable in the judgment for Tyre and Sidon than for you. And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You shall be brought down to Hades! (Q 10:12-15).

Kloppenborg attempts to resolve the problem of having elements of judgment in this sapiential section by arguing that (1) the motif of harvest in 10:2 does not appear again in the rest of the passage,[77] (2) In 10:2 the Lord of the harvest is the sender, whereas 10:3 and 10:16 “imply a chain in which Jesus is the proximate sender;” (3) “10:2 exists independently in Gos. Thom 73,” (4) the harvest metaphor is also used of the ingathering of Israel alone[78] and (5) “the command to pray for more missionaries is not directed to those sent out in v. 3, ‘but to Christians who might be imagined to be gathered for prayer prior to the commissioning as in Acts 13:1-3,”[79] (6) the woes of Q 10:13-15 “are clearly secondary interpolations appended because of the mention of the rejection of missionaries in 10:10-11.”[80] The justification for this conclusion is that 10:12-15 makes “an unfavorable contrast of Israel’s fate with that of the Gentiles”[81] and that they “differ markedly from 10:4-11 in form, tone, implied audience and tradition-historical provenance.”[82] This, says Kloppenborg, is characteristic of the judgment stratum as seen in Q 7:1-10 and 11:31-32.[83]

This is a lot to unpack: (1) While the word “harvest” does not re-appear, the context of the passage makes it clear that the whole mission referred to in this passage is about harvest of people for the kingdom of God.

(2) Rather than seeing some kind of disjunction between God as the sender in 10:2 and Jesus as the “proximate sender” in 10:3, this passage may be read to mean that Jesus, as a divine messenger or prophet, sends out harvesters on behalf of the Father. In this reading there is no disjunction and no evidence of redaction.

(3) As argued above, even assuming that the Gospel of Thomas preserved Q 10:2 as an independent tradition and did not just borrow it from the Gospels, which is a big assumption, the original author of Q could just as easily have incorporated that tradition into Q as a later editor.

(4) That the “command to pray for more missionaries is not directed to those sent out in v. 3”[84] is only true assuming that verse 2 was originally independent. The context of 10:2 and 3 together imply that the command in verse 3 is directed to those in verse 2.

(5) To say 10:13-15 was appended because of the mention of missionaries in 10:10-11 is pure speculation, not evidence.

(6) The fact that 10:4-11 differs from 10:13-15 in tone, form, implied audience, etc. is simply not indication of redaction. a. 10:11 speaks of the rejected missionaries as shaking the dust off their feet against those who reject their message. This is a serious condemnation and leads very naturally into the condemnations of 10:13-15. b. To say that the implied audience has changed in Q 10:12-15 is to imply that a speaker or writer could not possibly address a friendly audience but include warnings toward opponents outside the community. If presidential speeches were evaluated by these criteria, one might conclude that warnings to foreign enemies which occur in speeches directed to “my fellow Americans,” were later redactions.

VI. CONCLUSION

If Kloppenborg’s thesis about the stratification of Q is correct, early Christian communities proclaimed fundamentally different views of Jesus and of salvation. The Q community in particular was unaware of, or indifferent to, the proclamation of salvation by grace through faith in the atoning death of Christ. Further, as Kloppenborg notes:

…if Q’s silence concerning a salvific interpretation of Jesus’ fate makes
it difficult or impossible to conclude that the historical Jesus considered his
own death vicarious (as Dunn would have it), one might still wish to claim the
notion of Jesus’ death ‘for us’ (1 Cor 15:3) as a key Christian theologoumenon,
but it would be difficult to affirm any rootedness of this doctrine in the
historical Jesus[85]

One of the many problems with Kloppenborg’s hypothesis, however, is that it builds one hypothesis upon another upon another.[86] (1) Kloppenborg assumes the existence of Q[87] and while, for advocates of the Two Document Hypothesis, this alone should not cast doubt on Kloppenborg’s thesis, the important point is that scholarly doubt is increasing being expressed over the existence of Q and adding other hypotheses on top of this one rapidly decreases the plausibility of the theory.
(2) Assuming the existence of Q, Kloppenborg hypothesizes that virtually all of Q can be known and reconstructed. The primary reasons for this hypothesis, however, were shown to be invalid using Kloppenborg’s own arguments. Without this assumption, Kloppenborg’s case seems to be substantially weakened.
(3) Kloppenborg makes the assumptions that a) Jesus’ preaching was un-messianic, b) Q was a transitional stage between that un-messianic preaching and the Pauline kerygma and c) the only way to account for this transition was to postulate that the Q kerygma was different than the Pauline kerygma. As documented above, however, some scholars have shown on historical grounds that there is good reason to believe that Jesus preaching was messianic. If Jesus’ preaching was messianic, there would be less reason to suspect that the prophetic/apocalyptic or coming Son of Man sayings were redactional.
(4) Kloppenborg appears to assume that independent sayings were juxtaposed in subsequent editions of Q, and that they can now be separated into strata on the basis of form, motif and projected audience. It was shown, however, that in practice these tend to be very subjective criteria, that they should not be viewed as if they were three separate pieces of evidence, and that if similar arguments were applied to Kloppenborg’s own books, some of his work might be dismissed as later redaction by someone other than the author.
(5) Kloppenborg assumes that we can know what the Q community (another hypothesis) did not believe about Jesus based on what they did not include in their document, i.e. passion story and kerygma.[88] As shown above, however, this was an invalid assumption.
It must be concluded, therefore, that Kloppenborg, an obviously brilliant and meticulous scholar, has not demonstrated the stratification of Q, much less the presence of a competing soteriology in the early church. Ehrman sums the matter up well when he writes:
Let me repeat: Q is a source that we don’t have. To reconstruct what we think was in it is hypothetical enough. But at least in doing so we have some hard evidence, since we do have traditions that are verbatim the same in Matthew and Luke (but not found in Mark), and we have to account for them in some way. But to go further and insist that we know what was not in the source, for example, a Passion narrative, what its multiple editions were like, and which of these multiple editions was the earliest, and so on, really goes far beyond what we can know…[89]

[1] This chapter was originally published in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 46/2 (June 2003) 217-232.
[2] Most notably John Dominic Crossan and Burton Mack. Although Kloppenborg distances himself from the Cynic view of Jesus, his discussion of it is quite sympathetic at many points. John Kloppenborg. Excavating Q, (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000) 184-194, 426-442.
[3] See Burton Mack. Who Wrote the New Testament; the Making of the Christian Myth, (San Francisco : HarperSanFrancisco, 1995). For a review of this book see Dennis Ingolfsland, “A Review of Who Wrote the New Testament?” Bibliotheca Sacra 153 (1997) 205-221.
[4] Ron Cameron, “The Sayings Gospel Q and the quest of the historical Jesus: a response to John S. Kloppenborg,” Harvard Theological Review. 89/4 (October 1996) 351-354.
[5] Leslie R. Keylock, “Review of Excavating Q in Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society,” 45/2 (June 2002) 356.
[6] John Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q, (Harrisburg, PA : Trinity Press International, 1987).
[7] John Kloppenborg, Excavating Q. (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000).
[8] Kloppenborg, Formation, 21.
[9] Ibid. 21.
[10] Ibid. 21-22.
[11] Ibid. 22.
[12] Ibid. 87.
[13] i.e. theology that pictures Israel as persistently disobedient and in need of repentance to avoid coming wrath. Kloppenborg, Formation 93.
[14] Kloppenborg, Formation 93. Richard Horsley would agree with this assessment, but argues persuasively that the genre of Q is more logoi propheton rather than logoi sophon. This being the case, it is possible to see Q as a whole rather than postulating that Q originally consisted of wisdom sayings into which prophetic sayings were extensively interpolated. See Richard Horsley. Logoi Propheton? Reflections on the Genre of Q.” In Future of Early Christianity, (Minneapolis :Fortress Press, 1991) 195-209.
[15] Kloppenborg, Formation 96.
[16] Ibid. 96-99.
[17] The prophetic, judgmental and apocalyptic elements are combined in the second stratum and are often used almost interchangeably both in Kloppenborg and in this paper, although some, including Kloppenborg, have questioned the use of the designation “apocalyptic” with reference to Q. See John S. Kloppenborg, “Symbolic Eschatology and the Apocalypticism of Q,” Harvard Theological Review, 80/3 (1987) 287-306.
[18] Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, 11, 54.
[19] See especially Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q, (Harrisburg, PA : Trinity Press International, 2002). For Kloppenborg’s interaction with Michael Goulder on Q see Michael Goulder “Self-Contratiction in the IQP, Journal of Biblical Literature, 118/3 (Fall 1999) 506-517. Robert A. Derrenbacker and John S. Kloppenborg, “Self-Contradiction in the IQP?: A Reply to Michael Goulder,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 120/1 (2001) 57-76. Michael Goulder. “The Derrenbacker-Kloppenborg Defense,” Journal of Biblical Literature, 121/2 (2002) 331-336.
[20] Hodgson comments, “In a book with such an extensive history of Q research we miss some customary courtesies. For example, Kloppenborg might have given the work of Wm. Farmer and his students its due. They have revived the Griesbach hypothesis and, in essence, done away with Q. Farmer’s studies are an important line of research, are being carried forward in a new Society of Biblical Literature consultation, and, no matter how violently one disagrees with them, deserved attention.” Robert Hodgson, Jr., Review of “John S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q” in Biblica 70/2 (1989) 284. Ellis agrees: “Is it wise to pursue such a thesis with no recognition and, apparently no awareness of the currently widespread questioning and rejection of the Q hypothesis?” E. Earle Ellis, Review of The Formation of Q in the Southwestern Journal of Theology, 31/3 (Summer 1989) 66.
[21] Significantly adding to the instability of this foundation is the work of Mark Goodacre. The Case Against Q, (Harrisburg PA : Trinity Press International, 2002). Kloppenborg notes, “If his argument should be sustained, Q would become unnecessary and decades of Gospel research will have to be re-thought…The Case Against Q provides the most accessible and compelling defense to date on the theory of Gospel origins championed by James Ropes, Austin Farrer, and Michael Goulder” (Back cover of The Case against Q).
[22] Kloppenborg, Formation 80-88. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000) 91-104.
[23] Kloppenborg, Formation 42, cf. also 80. For an excellent discussion of Q as narrative, see Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q, (Harrisburg, PA : Trinity Press International, 2002) 172-176.
[24] Kloppenborg, Formation 81-82.
[25] Kloppenborg, Excavating Q, (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000) 61.
[26] Ibid. 61.
[27] Ibid. 89.
[28] Kloppenborg, Formation 81.
[29] Kloppenborg, Excavating Q 366-367.
[30] Kloppenborg, Formation 81.
[31] Observing that Luke elsewhere preferred Q to Mark, W.E. Bundy suggested that the passion accounts of Luke 22:25-27, 28-30 and 35-46 were part of Q. Kloppenborg, Formation 85.
[32] Burkitt proposed that Luke 22:24-30 “was a conflation of Mark 10:41-45 and Q”. Kloppenborg dismissed these passages as not directly dealing with the passion. Kloppenborg, Formation, 85.
[33] Kloppenborg cites several verses in the passion narrative which Hirsh believed to be part of Q, i.e. Luke 22:48, 62, 64, 69 and 24:47. While admitting that Luke 22:48 has been shown to be pre-Lucan, Kloppenborg observes that this doesn’t prove it came from Q. Kloppenborg noted that Luke 22:62 is “beset with textual difficulties” (some texts omit the verse) but “the statement that ‘Peter went out and wept bitterly’ is not a solid basis for a Q passion account” Kloppenborg, Formation 86-87. Luke 22.64 is also dismissed due to textual uncertainties--although one will look in vain at the UBS test for textual variants. The uncertainties consist in the fact that since Matthew 14:65 omits the phrase “and to cover his face and to strike him which is contained in Mark, and since the covering of Jesus’ face is necessary to make sense of Matthew’s question, “Who is it that struck you”, according to Kloppenborg, this suggests that both the face covering and the question were originally lacking in Mark and, therefore, also in Matthew. According to Kloppenborg, this means that “Luke 22.64 is due to redaction, not the influence of Q.” Kloppenborg, Formation 87, n. 1.
[34] Kloppenborg cites Taylor and Schneider who contend that Luke 22:69-70 come from another tradition. Kloppenborg responds saying this “is not evidence that this tradition was Q.” Kloppenborg, Formation 86.
[35] Kloppenborg, Formation 87. Elsewhere Kloppenborg speaks of “the liberation of Q from the servitude to the passion Kerygma…” Kloppenborg, Excavating Q 350.
[36] Kloppenborg uses this method several times in The Formation of Q, i.e., he analyzes opponents arguments in detail, dismisses them as less than convincing, and assumes that he has therefore proven his own position.
[37] It should be noted, however, that Q mentions the sign of Jonah. In the context of Matthew 12:40 this is explicitly tied to Jesus’ resurrection whereas in Luke 11:30 this is not explicitly stated. Kloppenborg assumes that Luke’s was closer to the original but for all we know, Luke’s audience may have been familiar with the tie between the story of Jonah and the resurrection so Luke felt no need to explain it. It is quite frankly, impossible to know whether this connection between Jonah and the resurrection was part of Q or not. This being the case, it is impossible to assert that Q did not have reference to the resurrection.
[38] Philip Jenkins. Hidden Gospels; How the Search for Jesus Lost its Way (New York : Oxford University Press, 2001), 73-78.

[39] Kloppenborg, Excavating, 375-376.
[40] Kloppenborg, Formation 21.
[41] Ibid. 22.
[42] See for example, Ben Witherington. The Christology of Jesus (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 1990). N.T. Wright. Jesus and the Victory of God (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 1996). Dennis Ingolfsland. “The Historical Jesus According to John Dominic Crossan’s First Strata Sources: A Critical Comment.” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 45/3 (September 2002) 405-414.
[43] As a whole, Q presents Jesus as the apocalyptic judge and coming Son of Man. If Jesus’ teaching was un-Messianic, it is easy to see why these elements would be viewed later editions.
[44] To carry the analogy of the harsh letter even further: Supposing that this was the only one of Paul’s letters that survived, one can imagine the critics arguing that the “gospel” this “harsh” letter proclaims is just the good news of the coming Jewish kingdom. We can be sure that it has nothing to do with Jesus’ atoning death since the idea of Jesus suffering for sins never occurs once in the harsh letter! Since Paul speaks of his own suffering and even hints at his own death and exaltation (being “caught up to the third heaven”), it would have been perfectly natural for Paul to have made a comparison of his own experiences with those of Jesus--if Paul was aware of Jesus resurrection and ascension. In fact the only hint of the resurrection at all is in 13:4 which says that “he was crucified in weakness, but lives by the power of God.” But this doesn’t actually say Jesus rose from the dead--just that he survived crucifixion! Maybe the later gospel writers misunderstood and turned this into a resurrection. Or since, this is the only hint of resurrection theology in the entire “harsh” letter, maybe it was added by a later editor--similar to the way the writer of Matthew made the Jonah saying of Q into a sign of the resurrection of Jesus. It might be concluded, therefore, that Paul knew nothing of the kerygma. For Paul, Jesus was a martyred man of God to whom one should be devoted as an example--certainly not the resurrected Son of God who dies for the sins of the world. If the “harsh” letter was the only evidence we had from the “Paul community” this conclusion might seem possible to some minds. But since we have other letters of Paul, we know that this hypothetical critical assessment of the harsh letter could not be farther from the truth. Such is the danger of taking one document--especially a hypothetical and possibly incomplete document--and drawing conclusions about what the people who produced this document could not have believed based on apparent omissions.
[45] Kloppenborg, Excavating Q 371.
[46] Kloppenborg, Formation 97.
[47] Ibid. 98.
[48] Ibid. 99.
[49] Ibid. 171.
[50] John J. Collins. “Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and Generic Compatibility” in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie, ed. By Leo Perdue et al. (Westminster/John Knox Press) 185). For a similar assessment see also M. Eugene Boring. Review of The Formation of Q in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, LVIII/2 (Summer 1990) 294.
[51] Kloppenborg, Excavating Q 145-146. See also 150-151 where the point is re-emphasized even more forcefully.
[52] Kloppenborg, Formation 98.
[53] Ibid. 168-169.
54] Ibid. 169.
[55] Ibid. 81-82.
[56] Kloppenborg, Excavating Q 89.
[57] Kloppenborg, Formation 81.
[58] Kloppenborg, Excavating Q 366-367.
[59] Kloppenborg, Formation. 97. Kloppenborg is favorably quoting Arland Jacobson, see Formation 98.
[60] Q 3:7-9, 16-17; 7:1-10, 18-35; 11:14-26, 29-33, 39-52; 12:39-59 and 17:23-35. Kloppenborg, Formation 166.
[61] Kloppenborg, Formation 167.
[62] Ibid. 168-169. Pronounced KRAY-ah. A “chreia “ is “a brief anecdote focused on reporting a memorable saying or action associated with a prominent person. The Greek word referred to "what is useful (or needed)," especially in confrontations with others (war, business, debate). In Greek rhetoric it designated a narrative statement or story that could be cited to make a point.” See http://religion.rutgers.edu/nt/primer/chreia.html for this definition and further information.
[63] Ibid. 169.
[64] Richard Horsely. “Logoi Propheton? Reflections on the Genre of Q.” In Future of Early Christianity, (Minneapolis :Fortress Press, 1991) 195-209. See also Richard Horsley, Sociology and the Jesus Movement, (New York : Continuum, 1994) 108-111. For Kloppenborg’s response to Horsley see John S. Kloppenborg. “The Formation of Q Revisited: A Response to Richard Horsley,” Society of Biblical Literature 1989 Seminar Papers ed. By David J. Lull, (Society of Biblical Literature, 1989) 204-215.
[65] Arland D. Jacobson. Review of The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections” in the Journal of Biblical Literature, 108/1 (1989) 152. Tuckett’s observations may also be of interest here. Arguing against the theories of Vaage and Mack “that Q1 is to be seen as Cynic”, Tuckett notes “But according to Kloppenborg’s analysis, the chreiai in Q characterize ‘Q2, rather than ‘Q1’. Indeed they serve to distinguish the alleged layers. It is thus rather odd, to say the least to have a generic similarity between the cynic material and Q2, whilst asserting that the primary link between Q and cynic traditions is at the level of Q1. This problem can be alleviated in part by assigning some chreiai to Q1 rather than to Q2. However, this distinction in forms used in the two alleged layers was a part of the argument for distinguishing the layers in the first place; hence the transfer of the chreiai to Q1 undermines a further support in the argument for the existence of the strata themselves.” Christopher Tuckett, Q and the History of Early Christianity, (Peabody, MA : Hendrickson, 1996) 382.
[66] Richard Horsley. “Logoi Propheton? Reflections on the Genre of Q”, In The Future of Early Christianity. (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 1991) 198.
[67] Kloppenborg, Formation 185-189.
[68] Ibid. 185-186, 188.
[69] Pronounced KRAY-eye.
[70] Kloppenborg, Formation. 190.
[71] Kloppenborg sees Q 9:61-62 as an allusion to the calling of Elijah in 1 Kings 19:19-21.
[72] Kloppenborg, Formation 191.
[73] Ibid. 191.
[74] For a brief argument against Thomas’ independence from the Gospels, see Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q, (Harrisburg, PA : Trinity Press International, 2002) 147-150. For a more thorough case, Goodacre refers his readers to Christopher Tuckett, “Thomas and the Synoptics,” Novum Testamentum, (1998) 132-157.
[75] Kloppenborg, Formation 93.
[76] Ibid. 195.
[77] Ibid. 193.
[78] Ibid. 193.
[79] Ibid. 193.
[80] Ibid. 195.
[81] Ibid. 196.
[82] Ibid. 199.
[83] Ibid. 196-199.
[84] Ibid. 193.
[85] Kloppenborg, Excavating Q 362.
[86] Kloppenborg acknowledges this criticism, but his response to it, appears to my mind, to have completely sidestepped the issue. Kloppenborg, Excavating Q. 111.
[87] For some scholars, the existence of Q seems to have moved beyond the realm of hypothesis to being a dogma to be defended even at the cost of reason. Goodacre quotes Christopher Tuckett and Frans Neirynck who argued, in effect, that even if it was conceded that the minor agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark did indeed demonstrate that Luke knew and occasionally used Matthew that would not prove that Q didn’t exist. But as Goodacre points out, “…the Q hypothesis is predicated on the assumption that Luke did not know Matthew…” Mark Goodacre, The Case Against Q, (Harrisburg, PA : Trinity Press International, 2002) 165-168.
[88] As Wilson notes, Kloppenborg’s “argument involves hypothesis upon hypothesis upon hypothesis, a house of cards which can easily tumble” S.G. Wilson, Review of The Formation of Q” in the University of Toronto Quarterly, 58/1 (Fall 1988) 227-228.
[89] Bart Ehrman, Jesus, Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. (New York : Oxford University Press) 133.

The "Lost Gospel of Q"

The so-called “Lost gospel of Q” is a hypothesis which comes from a theory about the origin of the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke). According to the theory (called the “two-source theory”), the writers of Matthew and Luke both copied from the Gospel of Mark.

Adherents to the two-source theory are convinced, however, that neither Matthew nor Luke used each other’s gospels. This presents a problem since there is a significant amount of material that is very similar (sometimes word-for-word identical) between Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark. Scholars ask, if Matthew and Luke did not get this common material from Mark, and if they did not get it from each other, where did it come from?

Their answer? They must have got it from another source. The German word for source is Quelle, often abbreviated as “Q” for short. It is important to note that while such a theory is certainly possible, nothing that could be identified as Q has ever been discovered. Q is just a hypothesis.

So if “Q” is just a hypothesis, how is it that scholars write books containing the full-text of “Q”? How do you come up with the text of a hypothesis?

Scholars come up with the text of Q by cutting and pasting together all the material common to Matthew and Luke that is not found in Mark (if the material was also found in Mark, scholars assume that Matthew and Luke got if from Mark). When the material common to Matthew and Luke is similar, but not word-for-word identical, the scholars then pick and choose between Matthew and Luke regarding what they think most probably came from Q.

What follows is an edition of Q. Since most scholars believe Luke preserves the most faithful rendering of Q, the edition of Q below presents “Q according to Luke.” No attempt has been made to indulge in idle speculation about whether Matthew or Luke has the best reading.

The passages used for “Q” below are those identified by John S. Kloppenborg in his book, Q Thomas Reader as belonging to Q. The translation is from the NetBible, an excellent online Bible translation which can be found at http://net.bible.org/home.php. When identifying a passage in Q, scholars generally follow the verses in Luke, so for example, 3:2 = Luke 3:2 and its parallel in Matthew. Q6:12 = Luke 6:12 and its parallel in Matthew, etc. In the passages below, therefore, Q6, for example, can be found in Luke 6.

It should be noted that although the two source theory seems to be the majority theory among American biblical scholars today, there are many very reputable scholars who disagree. One of those is Mark Goodacre at Duke University. In my opinion, if scholars at the end of the 19th century could have read Mark Goodacre’s book, The Case Against Q, the two-source theory would have been dead on arrival.

So why would someone like me who does not believe that Q ever existed, post “Q according to Luke?” First, there are many scholars who believe that Q is the very earliest source for Jesus in existence (or non-existence :-) Second, because there are scholars who spin the Q theory as if Q is some kind of new archaeological discovery that will change everything you thought you knew about Christianity. I think people should be able to judge for themselves whether this claim is true or not. To that end, I give you “Q according to Luke.”

Q according to Luke

Q3 So John said to the crowds that came out to be baptized by him, “You offspring of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the coming wrath? Therefore produce fruit that proves your repentance, and don’t begin to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I tell you that God can raise up children for Abraham from these stones! Even now the ax is laid at the root of the trees and every tree that does not produce good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. I baptize you with water, but one more powerful than I am is coming – I am not worthy to untie the strap of his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire.”

Q4 Then Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the Jordan River and was led by the Spirit in the wilderness, where for forty days he endured temptations from the devil. He ate nothing during those days, and when they were completed, he was famished. The devil said to him, “If you are the Son of God, command this stone to become bread.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘Man does not live by bread alone.”

Then the devil led him up to a high place and showed him in a flash all the kingdoms of the world. And he said to him, “To you I will grant this whole realm – and the glory that goes along with it, for it has been relinquished to me, and I can give it to anyone I wish. So then, if you will worship me, all this will be yours.” Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘You are to worship the Lord your God and serve only him.’”

Then the devil brought him to Jerusalem, had him stand on the highest point of the temple, and said to him, “If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down from here, for it is written, ‘He will command his angels concerning you, to protect you,’ and ‘with their hands they will lift you up, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’” Jesus answered him, “It is said, ‘You are not to put the Lord your God to the test.’” So when the devil had completed every temptation, he departed from him until a more opportune time.

Q6 Then he looked up at his disciples and said: “Blessed are you who are poor, for the kingdom of God belongs to you. “Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be satisfied. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude you and insult you and reject you as evil on account of the Son of Man! Rejoice in that day, and jump for joy, because your reward is great in heaven. For their ancestors did the same things to the prophets.”

“But I say to you who are listening: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. To the person who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other as well, and from the person who takes away your coat, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks you, and do not ask for your possessions back from the person who takes them away.

Treat others in the same way that you would want them to treat you. “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to be repaid, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, so that they may be repaid in full. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to ungrateful and evil people. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”

“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven. For the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Someone who is blind cannot lead another who is blind, can he? Won’t they both fall into a pit? A disciple is not greater than his teacher, but everyone when fully trained will be like his teacher. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while you yourself don’t see the beam in your own? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye. For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit, for each tree is known by its own fruit. For figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from brambles. The good person out of the good treasury of his heart produces good, and the evil person out of his evil treasury produces evil, for his mouth speaks from what fills his heart.”

“Why do you call me ‘Lord, Lord,’ and don’t do what I tell you? Everyone who comes to me and listens to my words and puts them into practice – I will show you what he is like: He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep, and laid the foundation on bedrock. When a flood came, the river burst against that house but could not shake it, because it had been well built. But the person who hears and does not put my words into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. When the river burst against that house, it collapsed immediately, and was utterly destroyed!”

Q7 After Jesus had finished teaching all this to the people, he entered Capernaum. A centurion there had a slave who was highly regarded, but who was sick and at the point of death. When the centurion heard about Jesus, he sent some Jewish elders to him, asking him to come and heal his slave. When they came to Jesus, they urged him earnestly, “He is worthy to have you do this for him, because he loves our nation, and even built our synagogue.”

So Jesus went with them. When he was not far from the house, the centurion sent friends to say to him, “Lord, do not trouble yourself, for I am not worthy to have you come under my roof. That is why I did not presume to come to you. Instead, say the word, and my servant must be healed. For I too am a man set under authority, with soldiers under me. I say to this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”

When Jesus heard this, he was amazed at him. He turned and said to the crowd that followed him, “I tell you, not even in Israel have I found such faith!” So when those who had been sent returned to the house, they found the slave well.

John’s disciples informed him about all these things. So John called two of his disciples and sent them to Jesus to ask, “Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?” When the men came to Jesus, they said, “John the Baptist has sent us to you to ask, ‘Are you the one who is to come, or should we look for another?’” So he answered them, “Go tell John what you have seen and heard: The blind see, the lame walk, lepers are cleansed, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, the poor have good news proclaimed to them. Blessed is anyone who takes no offense at me.” When John’s messengers had gone, Jesus began to speak to the crowds about John: “What did you go out into the wilderness to see? A reed shaken by the wind? What did you go out to see? A man dressed in fancy clothes? Look, those who wear fancy clothes and live in luxury are in kings’ courts! What did you go out to see? A prophet? Yes, I tell you, and more than a prophet. This is the one about whom it is written, ‘Look, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you.’ I tell you, among those born of women no one is greater than John. Yet the one who is least in the kingdom of God is greater than he is.”

“To what then should I compare the people of this generation, and what are they like? They are like children sitting in the marketplace and calling out to one another, ‘We played the flute for you, yet you did not dance; we wailed in mourning, yet you did not weep.’ For John the Baptist has come eating no bread and drinking no wine, and you say, ‘He has a demon!’ The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him, a glutton and a drunk, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ But wisdom is vindicated by all her children.”

Q9 As they were walking along the road, someone said to him, “I will follow you wherever you go.” Jesus said to him, “Foxes have dens and the birds in the sky have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head.” Jesus said to another, “Follow me.” But he replied, “Lord, first let me go and bury my father.” But Jesus said to him, “Let the dead bury their own dead, but as for you, go and proclaim the kingdom of God.”

Q10 He said to them, “The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few. Therefore ask the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into his harvest. Go! I am sending you out like lambs surrounded by wolves. Do not carry a money bag, a traveler’s bag, or sandals, and greet no one on the road. Whenever you enter a house, first say, ‘May peace be on this house!’ And if a peace-loving person is there, your peace will remain on him, but if not, it will return to you. Stay in that same house, eating and drinking what they give you, for the worker deserves his pay.”

Do not move around from house to house. Whenever you enter a town and the people welcome you, eat what is set before you. Heal the sick in that town and say to them, ‘The kingdom of God has come upon you!’ But whenever you enter a town and the people do not welcome you, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust of your town that clings to our feet we wipe off against you. Nevertheless know this: The kingdom of God has come.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town!”

“Woe to you, Chorazin! Woe to you, Bethsaida! For if the miracles done in you had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repented long ago, sitting in sackcloth and ashes. But it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon in the judgment than for you! And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? No, you will be thrown down to Hades! The one who listens to you listens to me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

On that same occasion Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, “I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and intelligent, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your gracious will. All things have been given to me by my Father. No one knows who the Son is except the Father, or who the Father is except the Son and anyone to whom the Son decides to reveal him.” Then Jesus turned to his disciples and said privately, “Blessed are the eyes that see what you see! For I tell you that many prophets and kings longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.”

Q 11 So he said to them, “When you pray, say: Father, may your name be honored; may your kingdom come. Give us each day our daily bread, and forgive us our sins, for we also forgive everyone who sins against us. And do not lead us into temptation. So I tell you: Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. What father among you, if your son asks for a fish, will give him a snake instead of a fish? Or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, although you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!”

Now he was casting out a demon that was mute. When the demon had gone out, the man who had been mute began to speak, and the crowds were amazed. But some of them said, “By the power of Beelzebul, the ruler of demons, he casts out demons.” Others, to test him, began asking for a sign from heaven. But Jesus, realizing their thoughts, said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself is destroyed, and a divided household falls. So if Satan too is divided against himself, how will his kingdom stand? I ask you this because you claim that I cast out demons by Beelzebul. Now if I cast out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they will be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the finger of God, then the kingdom of God has already overtaken you. When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own palace, his possessions are safe. But when a stronger man attacks and conquers him, he takes away the first man’s armor on which the man relied and divides up his plunder. Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.”

“When an unclean spirit goes out of a person, it passes through waterless places looking for rest but not finding any. Then it says, ‘I will return to the home I left.’ When it returns, it finds the house swept clean and put in order. Then it goes and brings seven other spirits more evil than itself, and they go in and live there, so the last state of that person is worse than the first.” As the crowds were increasing, Jesus began to say, “This generation is a wicked generation; it looks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah. For just as Jonah became a sign to the people of Nineveh, so the Son of Man will be a sign to this generation.”

“The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with the people of this generation and condemn them, because she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon – and now, something greater than Solomon is here! The people of Nineveh will stand up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, because they repented when Jonah preached to them – and now, something greater than Jonah is here!”

“No one after lighting a lamp puts it in a hidden place or under a basket, but on a lampstand, so that those who come in can see the light. Your eye is the lamp of your body. When your eye is healthy, your whole body is full of light, but when it is diseased, your body is full of darkness. Therefore see to it that the light in you is not darkness. If then your whole body is full of light, with no part in the dark, it will be as full of light as when the light of a lamp shines on you.”

“Now you Pharisees clean the outside of the cup and the plate, but inside you are full of greed and wickedness. You fools! Didn’t the one who made the outside make the inside as well? But give from your heart to those in need, and then everything will be clean for you. “But woe to you Pharisees! You give a tenth of your mint, rue, and every herb, yet you neglect justice and love for God! But you should have done these things without neglecting the others.

Woe to you Pharisees! You love the best seats in the synagogues and elaborate greetings in the marketplaces! Woe to you! You are like unmarked graves, and people walk over them without realizing it!” But Jesus replied, “Woe to you experts in religious law as well! You load people down with burdens difficult to bear, yet you yourselves refuse to touch the burdens with even one of your fingers! Woe to you! You build the tombs of the prophets whom your ancestors killed. So you testify that you approve of the deeds of your ancestors, because they killed the prophets and you build their tombs!”

“For this reason also the wisdom of God said, ‘I will send them prophets and apostles, some of whom they will kill and persecute,’ so that this generation may be held accountable for the blood of all the prophets that has been shed since the beginning of the world, from the blood of Abel to the blood of Zechariah, who was killed between the altar and the sanctuary. Yes, I tell you, it will be charged against this generation. Woe to you experts in religious law! You have taken away the key to knowledge! You did not go in yourselves, and you hindered those who were going in.”

Q 12 “Nothing is hidden that will not be revealed, and nothing is secret that will not be made known. So then whatever you have said in the dark will be heard in the light, and what you have whispered in private rooms will be proclaimed from the housetops. “I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have nothing more they can do. But I will warn you whom you should fear: Fear the one who, after the killing, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!”

“Aren’t five sparrows sold for two pennies? Yet not one of them is forgotten before God. In fact, even the hairs on your head are all numbered. Do not be afraid; you are more valuable than many sparrows. I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge before God’s angels. But the one who denies me before men will be denied before God’s angels. And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the person who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.”

“But when they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, do not worry about how you should make your defense or what you should say, for the Holy Spirit will teach you at that moment what you must say.”

Then someone from the crowd said to him, “Teacher, tell my brother to divide the inheritance with me.” But Jesus said to him, “Man, who made me a judge or arbitrator between you two?” He then told them a parable: “The land of a certain rich man produced an abundant crop, so he thought to himself, ‘What should I do, for I have nowhere to store my crops?’ Then he said, ‘I will do this: I will tear down my barns and build bigger ones, and there I will store all my grain and my goods. And I will say to myself, “You have plenty of goods stored up for many years; relax, eat, drink, celebrate!”’ But God said to him, ‘You fool! This very night your life will be demanded back from you, but who will get what you have prepared for yourself?’ So it is with the one who stores up riches for himself, but is not rich toward God.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat, or about your body, what you will wear. For there is more to life than food, and more to the body than clothing. Consider the ravens: They do not sow or reap, they have no storeroom or barn, yet God feeds them. How much more valuable are you than the birds! And which of you by worrying can add an hour to his life? So if you cannot do such a very little thing as this, why do you worry about the rest? Consider how the flowers grow; they do not work or spin. Yet I tell you, not even Solomon in all his glory was clothed like one of these! And if this is how God clothes the wild grass, which is here today and tomorrow is tossed into the fire to heat the oven, how much more will he clothe you, you people of little faith! So do not be overly concerned about what you will eat and what you will drink, and do not worry about such things. For all the nations of the world pursue these things, and your Father knows that you need them. Instead, pursue his kingdom, and these things will be given to you as well.”

“Do not be afraid, little flock, for your Father is well pleased to give you the kingdom. Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide yourselves purses that do not wear out – a treasure in heaven that never decreases, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. But understand this: If the owner of the house had known at what hour the thief was coming, he would not have let his house be broken into. You also must be ready, because the Son of Man will come at an hour when you do not expect him.”

“Who then is the faithful and wise manager, whom the master puts in charge of his household servants, to give them their allowance of food at the proper time? Blessed is that slave whom his master finds at work when he returns. I tell you the truth, the master will put him in charge of all his possessions. But if that slave should say to himself, ‘My master is delayed in returning,’ and he begins to beat the other slaves, both men and women, and to eat, drink, and get drunk, then the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he does not foresee, and will cut him in two, and assign him a place with the unfaithful.”

“Do you think I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division! For from now on there will be five in one household divided, three against two and two against three. They will be divided, father against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law.”

Jesus also said to the crowds, “When you see a cloud rising in the west, you say at once, ‘A rainstorm is coming,’ and it does. And when you see the south wind blowing, you say, ‘There will be scorching heat,’ and there is. You hypocrites! You know how to interpret the appearance of the earth and the sky, but how can you not know how to interpret the present time? “And why don’t you judge for yourselves what is right? As you are going with your accuser before the magistrate, make an effort to settle with him on the way, so that he will not drag you before the judge, and the judge hand you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison. I tell you, you will never get out of there until you have paid the very last cent!”

Q 13 Thus Jesus asked, “What is the kingdom of God like? To what should I compare it? It is like a mustard seed that a man took and sowed in his garden. It grew and became a tree, and the wild birds nested in its branches.” Again he said, “To what should I compare the kingdom of God? It is like yeast that a woman took and mixed with three measures of flour until all the dough had risen.”

“Exert every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. Once the head of the house gets up and shuts the door, then you will stand outside and start to knock on the door and beg him, ‘Lord, let us in!’ But he will answer you, ‘I don’t know where you come from.’ Then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in your presence, and you taught in our streets.’ But he will reply, ‘I don’t know where you come from! Go away from me, all you evildoers!’ There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all the prophets in the kingdom of God but you yourselves thrown out. Then people will come from east and west, and from north and south, and take their places at the banquet table in the kingdom of God. But indeed, some are last who will be first, and some are first who will be last.”

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those who are sent to you! How often I have longed to gather your children together as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you would have none of it! Look, your house is forsaken! And I tell you, you will not see me until you say, ‘Blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord!’”

Q 14 “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the one who humbles himself will be exalted.” But Jesus said to him, “A man once gave a great banquet and invited many guests. At the time for the banquet he sent his slave to tell those who had been invited, ‘Come, because everything is now ready.’ But one after another they all began to make excuses. The first said to him, ‘I have bought a field, and I must go out and see it. Please excuse me.’ Another said, ‘I have bought five yoke of oxen, and I am going out to examine them. Please excuse me.’ Another said, ‘I just got married, and I cannot come.’ So the slave came back and reported this to his master. Then the master of the household was furious and said to his slave, ‘Go out quickly to the streets and alleys of the city, and bring in the poor, the crippled, the blind, and the lame.’ Then the slave said, ‘Sir, what you instructed has been done, and there is still room.’ So the master said to his slave, ‘Go out to the highways and country roads and urge people to come in, so that my house will be filled. For I tell you, not one of those individuals who were invited will taste my banquet!’”

“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother, and wife and children, and brothers and sisters, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple. Whoever does not carry his own cross and follow me cannot be my disciple. Salt is good, but if salt loses its flavor, how can its flavor be restored? It is of no value for the soil or for the manure pile; it is to be thrown out. The one who has ears to hear had better listen!”

Q 15 “Which one of you, if he has a hundred sheep and loses one of them, would not leave the ninety-nine in the open pasture and go look for the one that is lost until he finds it? Then when he has found it, he places it on his shoulders, rejoicing. Returning home, he calls together his friends and neighbors, telling them, ‘Rejoice with me, because I have found my sheep that was lost.’ I tell you, in the same way there will be more joy in heaven over one sinner who repents than over ninety-nine righteous people who have no need to repent.”

Q 16 “No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”

“The law and the prophets were in force until John; since then, the good news of the kingdom of God has been proclaimed, and everyone is urged to enter it. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away than for one tiny stroke of a letter in the law to become void.”

“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries someone else commits adultery, and the one who marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery.”

Q 17 Jesus said to his disciples, “Stumbling blocks are sure to come, but woe to the one through whom they come! It would be better for him to have a millstone tied around his neck and be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin. If your brother sins, rebuke him. If he repents, forgive him. Even if he sins against you seven times in a day, and seven times returns to you saying, ‘I repent,’ you must forgive him.”

“If you had faith the size of a mustard seed, you could say to this black mulberry tree, ‘Be pulled out by the roots and planted in the sea,’ and it would obey you.”

“Then people will say to you, ‘Look, there he is!’ or ‘Look, here he is!’ Do not go out or chase after them. For just like the lightning flashes and lights up the sky from one side to the other, so will the Son of Man be in his day. Just as it was in the days of Noah, so too it will be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, they were drinking, they were marrying, they were being given in marriage – right up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.”

“Likewise, just as it was in the days of Lot, people were eating, drinking, buying, selling, planting, building; but on the day Lot went out from Sodom, fire and sulfur rained down from heaven and destroyed them all. It will be the same on the day the Son of Man is revealed. Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life will preserve it. I tell you, in that night there will be two people in one bed; one will be taken and the other left. There will be two women grinding grain together; one will be taken and the other left.” Then the disciples said to him, “Where, Lord?” He replied to them, “Where the dead body is, there the vultures will gather.”

Q 18 “For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

Q 19 Therefore he said, “A nobleman went to a distant country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. And he summoned ten of his slaves, gave them ten minas, and said to them, ‘Do business with these until I come back.’ But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to be king over us!’ When he returned after receiving the kingdom, he summoned these slaves to whom he had given the money. He wanted to know how much they had earned by trading. So the first one came before him and said, ‘Sir, your mina has made ten minas more.’ And the king said to him, ‘Well done, good slave! Because you have been faithful in a very small matter, you will have authority over ten cities.’ Then the second one came and said, ‘Sir, your mina has made five minas.’ So the king said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ Then another slave came and said, ‘Sir, here is your mina that I put away for safekeeping in a piece of cloth. For I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You withdraw what you did not deposit and reap what you did not sow.’ The king said to him, ‘I will judge you by your own words, you wicked slave! So you knew, did you, that I was a severe man, withdrawing what I didn’t deposit and reaping what I didn’t sow? Why then didn’t you put my money in the bank, so that when I returned I could have collected it with interest?’ And he said to his attendants, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has ten.’ But they said to him, ‘Sir, he has ten minas already!’ ‘I tell you that everyone who has will be given more, but from the one who does not have, even what he has will be taken away.

Q22 “You are the ones who have remained with me in my trials. Thus I grant to you a kingdom, just as my Father granted to me, that you may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and you will sit on thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.