Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§7.4 The Sources
to around 8%, 37 so that the confidence in the existence of 'Q', based as heavily
as the hypothesis is on the passages towards the 100% end of the scale, must
inevitably be weaker in regard to passages towards the 8% end of the scale. 38
Alternatively expressed, given the amount of editorial modification which
Matthew and Luke must be assumed to have made (again on the parallel of
their use of Mark), it becomes exceedingly difficult to move from 'q' to 'Q'
with much confidence on many textual details. 39 Streeter's further suggestion,
40 that a substantial portion of the common ('q') material was actually derived
from oral tradition (not 'Q'), has fared little better, but deserves more attention,
since it allows the possibility that Matthew or Luke knew variant oral
forms of some 'Q' traditions and on several occasions at least preferred the oral
version. We shall have to return to the issue raised here later. 41
b. A Q Community?
None of this need be too serious, were it not that there are those who wish to
press for more far-reaching conclusions with regard to Q. 42 I have in mind particularly
the influential thesis of John Kloppenborg and those who follow it. For
one thing, Kloppenborg shares the widespread conviction that behind Q stands a
Q community. 43 That in itself is hardly objectionable: a sociological perspective
37. Statistics in R. Morgenthaler, Statistische Synopse (Zürich: Gotthelf, 1971) 258-61;
examples and table in Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q 56-64. The point is given particular
emphasis by T. Bergemann, Q auf dem Prüfstand: Die Zuordnung des Mat/Lk-Stoffes zu Q am
Beispiel der Bergpredigt (FRLANT 158; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1993).
38. The extensive use of double square brackets (denoting uncertainty as to the Q reading)
in passages outside those listed above (n. 29) by Robinson/Hoffmann/Kloppenborg, Critical
Edition, underlines the point.
39. E.g., which 'q' version of Matt. 12.28/Luke 11.20 came from 'Q'? Plausibility judgments
have to be made concerning both Matthew's and Luke's theologies, as well as Q's, before
a decision can be reached, and the case can be argued either way with more or less equal
facility (see below, chapter 12 n. 365).
40. See above, chapter 4 n. 84.
41. See below, §8.5.
42. Having made my point, I will revert to the simple nomenclature Q rather than persist
with 'Q'. I will follow the convention of citing Q passages according to Luke; e.g., Q 3:7-10 =
Luke 3:7-10/Matt. 3:7-9.
43. H. E. Tödt, The Son of Man in the Synoptic Tradition ( 2 1963; ET London: SCM, 1965)
246-69 is usually credited with starting this trend. For example, Kloppenborg cites S. Schulz, 'Die
Gottesherrschaft ist nahe herbeigekommen (Mt 10,7/Lk 10,9). Der kerygmatische Entwurf der Q-
Gemeinde Syrien', in Das Wort und die Wörter, G. Friedrich FS (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1973)
57-67: 'Behind Q there is a special sphere of tradition with an independent kerygmatic tradition,
i.e., a distinct community which preserved and continued to proclaim Jesus' message in the post-
149