No Christology in the Q community

[DCHindley]

Ahhh ...

I found this comparative chart of Q reconstructions in Kloppenborg's essay on Chapter 11 of Kloppenborg's Synoptic Problems: Collected Essays:

Q (numbered as found in Luke)	Schultz	Polag	Jacobson	Schmithals	Schenk	Kloppenborg	Sato	Zeller	Mack	Mack's Q
	1972	1977	1978/1992	1979,80,85	1981	1987/1990	1988	1977,82,84	1994
	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	(9)
(3:2-4)	--	SpR?		Q2	--	Q2	A	Q	Q2a	03:01-06
3:7-9	Q2	SpR	Qcr	Q1	Q	Q2	A	Q	Q2a	03:07-09
3:16bd	Q2	SpR	Qc	Q2	Qr	Q2	A	Q	Q2a	03:16-17
3:16c	Q2	SpR	Qi	Q2	Q	Q2	A	Q	Q2a
3:17	Q2	SpR	Qc	Q1	Q	Q2	A	Q	Q2a
[3:21-32]	--	SpR	Qc	Q2	--	--	A	Q?
4:1-13	Q2	SpR	Q3	Q2	Qr	Q3	SpE	Q3	Q3	04:01-13
[4:16]	--	?	--	--	--	?	A	--
<6:20a>	--	H	?	?	Q	Q1	A	Q	Q1	06:20a
6:20b-21	Q1	H	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	A	Q1	Q1	06:20-23
6:22-23b	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Qr	Q1	A	Q1	Q1
6:23c	Q2	H	Qcr	Q1	Qr	Q2r	A	Q1	Q1
(6:24-26)	--	?	--	Q1?	--	Q2	QLk	QLk
6:27-28,32-33, 35c	Q1	Ha	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	A	Q1	Q1	06:27-35
(6:34-35b)	--	--	Qc?	--	--	Q1	A?	--	Q1
6:29-30	Q1	Ha	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	A	Q1	Q1
(Q/Matt 5:41)	--	H	--	--	--	Q1	A	--
6:31	Q1	H	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	A	Q1	Q1
6:36	Q1	Ha	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	A	Q1	Q1	06:36-38
6:37b, 38c	Q1	Ha	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	A	Q1	Q1
(6:37c-38b)	--	Ha	Qc?	--	--	Q1	QLk	--	Q1
6:39b	Q2	H	Qcr	Q?	Q	Q1	SpE	?	Q1	06:39-40
6:40	Q2	H	Qc	Q?	Q	Q1	SpE	?	Q1
6:41-42	Q1	H	Qc	Q?	Q	Q1	A	Q1	Q1	06:41-42
6:43-45	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	SpE	Q1	Q1	06:43-45
6:46	Q2	H	Qc	Q2?	Qr	Q1	A	Q1	Q1	06:46-49
6:47-49	Q2	H	Qc	Q1?	Q*	Q1	A	Q1	Q1
7:1a	Q2	SpR	Qcr	Q2	Q	Q2	A	Q	Q2a	07:01-10
7:1b-2, 6-10	Q2	SpR	Qcr	Q2	Q	Q2	A	Q	Q2a
7:18-19, (20)	Q2	Ha	Qi	Q2	Qr	Q2	A	Q	Q2a	07:18-23
7:22	Q2	Ha	Qi	Q2	Q	Q2	A	Q	Q2a
7:23	Q2	Ha	Qi	Q2	Qr	Q2	A	Q	Q2a
7:24-26a	Q2	Ha	Qc	Q2	Q*	Q2	A	Q	Q2a	07:24-28
7:26b	Q2	Ha	Qc	Q2	Qr	Q2	A	Q	Q2a
7:27	Q2	SpR	Qc	Q2	Qr	Q2	SpE	Q	Q2a
7:28a	Q2	SpR	Qi	Q1	Q	Q2	A	Q	Q2a
7:28b	Q2	SpR	Qi	Q1	Qr	Q2	A	Q	Q2a
[7:29-30]	--	--	--	Q2	Qr	--	QLk	?
7:31-32	Q2	H	Qcr	Q1	Q*	Q2	C	Q	Q2a	07:31-35
7:33-35	Q2	H	Qcr	Q1*	Qr	Q2	C	Q	Q2a
9:57-58	Q2	H	Qc	Q2	Q*	Q1	B	Q	Q1	09:57-62
9:59-60	Q2	H	Qc	Q2	Q	Q1	B	Q	Q1
(9:61-62)	--	H	--	--	--	Q1	QLk	--	Q1
10:02	Q2	H	Qi	Q1	Q	Q1	B1	Q1	Q1	10:01-11
10:03	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	B	Q1	Q1
[Q/Matt 10:05-06]	--	--	--	--	--	--	(B)	--
[Q/Matt 10:23]	--	H	--	Q1	--	--	(B)	--
10:4-11	Q2	Ha	Qc*	Q1	Q	Q1	B	Q1	Q1
10:12	Q2	H	Qcr	Q2r	Q2r	Q2r	C	Q1	Q2a	10:12
10:13-15	Q2	H	Qc*	Q2	Q2r	Q2	C	Q	Q2a	10:13-15
10:16	Q2	Ha	Qc	Q1	Q1	Q1	Br	Q1	Q2b	10:16
10:21	Q2	SpR	Qi	Q1	Q2r	Q2	B	Q	Q3	10:21-22
10:22	Q2	SpR	Qi	Q2	Q2r	Q2	SpE	Q3?	Q3
10:23b-24	Q2	SpR	?	Q2	Q2r	Q2	B	Q	Q2b	10:23-24
[10:25-28]	--	--	--	--	--	--	SpE	Q?
[11:1b]	--	H	--	--	--	--	--	Q	Q1	11:01-04
11:2-4	Q1	H	Qi	Q1	Q	Q1	SpE	Q1	Q1
11:9-10	Q1	H	Qi	Q?	Q	Q1	SpE	Q1	Q1	11:09-13
11:11-13	Q1	H	Qi	Q?	Q*	Q	SpE	Q1	Q1
11:14-18a	Q2	Ha	Qc	Q1	Q	Q2	C	Q	Q2a	11:14-23
11:19	Q2	Ha	Qc	Q1	Q*	Q2	C	Q	Q2a
11:20	Q2	Ha	Qc	Q1	Q	Q2	C	Q	Q2a
(11:21-22)	--	Ha	--	Q?	--	Q2	C	Q	Q2a
11:23	Q2	Ha	Qc	Q1	Q	Q2	C	Q	Q2b	11:23
11:24-26	Q2	H	Qc	Q?	Q	Q2	C	QS	Q2b	11:24-26
(11:27-28)	--	--	Qc	--	--	Q2	--	--	Q3	11:27-28
11:16, 29	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Q*	Q2	C	Q	Q2a	11:16,29-32
11:30	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Qr	Q2	C	Q	Q2a
11:31-32	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Q*	Q2	C	Q	Q2a
11:33	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Q	Q2	SpE	Q	Q2b	11:33-35
11:34-35 (36)	Q2	H	Qc	Q?	Q1	Q2	SpE	Q	Q2b
11:39b-44, 46-48	Q1	H	Qc	Q1	Q	Q2	C	Q	Q2a	11:39-52
11:42d	Q1	H	Qc	Q1	Qr	Q3	C	Q	Q2a
11:49-51a	Q2	Hr	Qc	Q1	Q*	Q2	C*	Q	Q2a
11:51b	Q2	Hr	Qcr?	Q1	Qr	Q2r	C	Q	Q2a
11:52	Q1	H	Qc	Q1	Q	Q2	C	Q	Q2a
12:2-3	Q2	H	Qi?	Q1	Q	Q1	SpE	Q1	Q1	12:02-03
12:4-7	Q1	H	Qi?	Q1	Qr	Q1	SpE	Q1	Q1	12:04-07
12:8-9	Q1	H	Qi?	Q1	Qr	Q2	SpE	Q1	Q2b	12:08-12
12:10	Q2	SpR	Qi?	Q1	Qr	Q2	SpE	Q1	Q2b
12:11-12	Q2	H	Qi?	Q1	Qr	Q1	SpE	Q	Q2b
(12:13-14)	--	--	--	--	--	Q1	--	--	Q1	12:13-21
(12:16-21)	--	--	--	--	--	Q1	QLk	--	Q1
12:22b-24, 26-28	Q1	H	Qi?	Q1	Q*	Q1	SpE?	Q1	Q1	12:22-31
12:25	Q1	H	Qi?	Q1	Qr	Q1	SpE?	Q1	Q1
12:29-31	Q1	H	Qi?	Q1	Qr	Q1	SpE	Q1	Q1
12:33-34	Q1	H	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	SpE	Q1	Q1	12:33-34
[12:35-38]	--	H	Qc	Q1	--	--	QLk	Q1?
12:39	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Q*	Q2	SpE	Q1	Q2a	12:39-40
12:40	Q2	H	Qi?	Q1	Qr	Q2	SpE	Q1	Q2a
12:42b-46	Q2	H	Qi?	Q1	Q*	Q2	SpE	Q1	Q2a	12:42-46
[12:47-48]	--	SpR		--	--	--	QLk	--
(12:49)	Q2	SpR	Qc	--	--	Q2	SpE	--	Q2a	12:49-53
[12:50]	--	SpR			--	--	SpE	--	Q2a
12:51-53	Q2	SpR	Qc	Q?	Q	Q2	SpE	Q	Q2a
12:54-56	--	H	Qc	Q?	--	Q2	QLk	?	Q2a	12:54-56
12:57-59	Q2	H		Q?	Q*	Q2	SpE	?	Q2a	12:57-59
13:18-19	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Qr	Q1	SpE	Q	Q1	13:18-21
13:20-21	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Qr	Q1	SpE	Q	Q1
13:23	--			Q	Q	--	C	Q
13:24	Q2	H		Q	Q	Q1	C	Q	Q2a	13:24-27
13:(25), 26-27	Q2	H		Q	Q	Q2	C	Q	Q2a
13:28-29	Q2	H		Q	Q	Q2	C	Q	Q2a	13:28-30
13:30	--	H		Q	Q	Q2	--	--	Q2a
13:34-35a	Q2	H	Qc	Q1?	Qr	Q2	C	Q	Q3	13:34-35
13:35b	Q2	H	Qc	Q2r	Qr	Q2r	C	Q	Q3
[14:5]	--	H		--	Q	--	--	?
14:11/18:14	Q2	?		Q1	Q	Q1	--	?	Q1	14:11/18:14
14:16-24	Q2	H	Qc	Q2	Q*	Q2	?	Q	Q1	14:16-24
14:26	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	?	Q	Q1	14:26-27;17:33
14:27	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Q	Q1	?	Q	Q1
17:33	Q2	H	Qc	Q1?	Q	Q1	?	Q	Q1
14:34-35	Q2	H	Qc	Q1	Q*	Q1	?	Q	Q1	14:34-35
15:4-7	Q2	H	?	Q1?	Q*	Q1	?	Q	Q2b	15:04-10
(15:8-10)	--	H	?	--	--	Q1	--	--	Q2b
16:13	Q2	H	Qa	Q1	Q	Q1	?	Q	Q2b	16:13
16:16	Q2	H	?	Q1	Qr	Q2?	?	Q	Q3	16:16-18
16:17	Q1	H	?	Q1	Q	Q3	?	Q	Q3
16:18	Q1	H	?	Q1	Q	Q1	?	Q	Q3
17:1b	--	H	?	Q1	Q	Q1	?	Q	Q2b	17:01-02
17:02	--	H	?	Q1	--	Q1	--	--	Q2b
17:3b-4	Q2	H	?	Q1	Q	Q1	?	Q	Q2b	17:03-04
17:6b	Q2	H	Q1	Q1	Q	Q1	?	Q	Q2b	17:06
17:23-24	Q2	H		Q1	Q	Q2	C	Q1	Q2a	17:23-37
17:37b	Q2	H		Q1	Qr	Q2	C	Q1	Q2a
17:26-27, 30	Q2	H		Q1	Q	Q2	C	Q1	Q2a
(17:28-29)	--	H		Q1?	Q	Q2	QLk	Q?	Q2a
17:34-35	Q2	H		Q1	Q	Q2	C	Q1	Q2a
19:12-13,15b-26	Q2	SpR	?	Q2	Q*	Q2	?	Q	Q2a	19:11-27
22:28-30	Q2	H	?	Q1*	Q*	Q2	?	Q	Q3	22:28-30

Key:

Sigla.
-- not in Q
? in Q but attribution uncertain
sub collections

1. Schulz (1972)
Q1 The kerygma of the oldest Palestinian-Syrian Q community
Q2 The kerygma of the younger Syrian Q- community

2. 'Polag (1977)
H Main Collection (Hauptsammlung)
Ha Older clusters (Die älteren Spruchgruppen) predating the Main Collection
Hr Redactional insertions into the Hauptsammlung
SpR Late editing (Spätredaktion)

3. Jacobson (1978, 1992)
Qc compositional stage
Qc* saying with redactional touches
Qcr redaction at the compositional stage
Qi intermediate redaction
Q3 final redaction

4. Schmithals (1979, 1980, 1985)
Q1 nonkerygmatic, pre-Christian stratum
Q1* pre-Christian stratum with slight Q2 influence
Q2 Christological (post-Markan) redaction of Q.
Q2r creation of the redactor of Q.

5. Schenk (1981)
Q included in Q
Qr from the final redactional stratum
Q* traditional but with slight redactional touches

6. Kloppenborg (1987, 1990)
Q1 formative (instructional) stratum
Q2 secondary, polemical stratum
Q2r creation of the secondary redaction
Q3 tertiary glosses

7. Sato (1988)
A Redaction A [(A) = uncertain]
B Redaction B [(B) = uncertain]
C Redaction C [(C) = uncertain]
χr Redaction at the level of "A", "B" or "C"
SpE Spätere Einschübungen (later interpolations — major redaction)
QLk Proto-Lukan recension of Q

8. Zeller (1977, 1982, 1984)
Q1 Early Sayings-Complexes
Q Other Q sayings & complexes
Q3 Late Hellenistic-Jewish redaction of Q

DCH

[Michael BG]

DCHindley,

I am very surprised about how much you put into Q2 for Kloppenborg. I will look again at my copy of Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel and the notes I have made and come back with a fuller response tomorrow.

Well, I'm sure I pieced it together from sources, …

Formation of Q only suggests the parts he thinks are redactional strata in his literary analysis, but strata was not summarized as a table IIRC.

There is a web page that contains an English translation of the verses Burton Mack attributes to Q, with different formatting for Q1, Q2, & Q3, at:
https://www.tonyburke.ca/wp-content/upl ... Q-Text.pdf

I could not find a stratified English translation of Kloppenborg's Q online.

DCH

My surprise is a result of never seeing a list of Kloppenborg’s strafication or having worked through Q to determine it. I have a copy of Tony Burke’s Q divided into Q1, Q2 and Q3.

Returning to your earlier post. Kloppenborg recognises different layers in Q – judgmental or eschatological, deuteronomistic history, Wisdom (Sophia) as in “children of Wisdom” (Lk 7:35 [Mt 11:18f] and what I would call instruction sayings rather than ‘wisdom sayings’ and the temptation layer. Kloppenborg recognises that these instruction sayings are different in detail if not form from pagan wisdom sayings – “Q does not invoke the metaphor of parental instruction. And in contrast to the generally conservative comportment of the instruction, Q presents an ethic of radical discipleship …” (p 318).

I have not reached a decision on if I agree with Kloppenborg. It is possible that most of his layers are elements of the message of Jesus, which the writer of Q has assembled. Perhaps I will agree more with Bernard and conclude that there are few layers in Q.

Thank you DCH for the table of comparisons of Q layering. I will keep it in mind when reading H T Fleddermann’s Q A reconstruction and Commentary (2005) (which may take me a few years).

Bernard Muller

My notes were not as extensive as I thought they were, or I have lost the most recent version of them. However I found this, “In most cases it is virtually impossible to determine whether a particular saying is a creation of a redactor or whether it is simply a piece of tradition which was deemed appropriate for inclusion because it resonated with the interests of the reactor and his community” (p 97).

It is therefore possible that if the layers which scholars see are just ways in which the material has been put together that an earlier date then 60 CE is possible. It then becomes possible to see the theology of Q as a separate adaption of the early "Christian" views and would support the idea that the Palestinian “Christian” communities held different views about Jesus than the Pauline Christian communities.

[Bernard Muller]

To Michael BG,
I wish you read my piece on Q. I determined a good part of Q was created with the benefit of Mark's gospel. That does not mean that other parts were not collected before that. And I even think some were transmitted (verbally) from eyewitness like Peter and genuinely could be what was heard from Jesus. On this page, I quoted the sayings I think are (approximately) authentic from Jesus himself (seventeen of them). Most of them are from the Q source, the others from gMark: http://historical-jesus.info/86.html.

My criteria? Because these sayings seem to be from a poor uneducated Jew talking to other poor uneducated Jews, in the wake of John the Baptist arrest & then execution: the Kingdom of God is to come soon on earth. It will be for the poor Jews but not the rich ones. The Kingdom will provide for plenty of food, drink and clothes, saving on the hard labor to get all that. No eternal life is to be expected, no repentance is required. And all of that from an ardent admirer of John.

About layering, that's as far as I can go. I don't think layers can be found in Q, more so because Q was compiled from many authors having different viewpoints, and different sources (many times fabricated). The fact that scholars who proposed layers on Q do not agree with each other tells me that any layering scheme is not possible with some degree of certitude.

Cordially, Bernard

[Michael BG]

Bernard,

years ago you had a different website with more colourful background pages. I think I read everything you had up at that time, including your discussion of Q using Mark.

You are always so positive with your conclusions! For me each ‘conclusion’ is not definite but what I think is most likely. I have not concluded that so much doesn’t go back to Jesus and I am convinced his message included the coming end of time and a judgement. I think that, “everyone who acknowledges me before men, the Son of man also will acknowledge before the angels of God; but he who denies me before men will be denied before the angels of God” (Lk 12:8-9) goes back to Jesus.

[Bernard Muller]

to Michael BG,
The saying in question (Lk 12:8-9 and only here) looks to me very much like Christian propaganda. I think if a poor uneducated Jew would say that, he would be lynched or, at least, distrusted. Furthermore, Paul had in his hymn to Philippians, Jesus as humble, with no reputation.
But suit yourself. I am not here to convert anybody.
I am positive in that reconstruction because of years of in-depth research (which, many times, destroyed my prior opinions). That is, when there are many options for anything, I chose the most likely, in view of the rest of my research. That might be considered risky and ambitious, but it has to be done. If not, you cannot go anywhere and you stay in the swamp forever.
Here is my methodology, as stated in http://historical-jesus.info/author.html
Please note what I bolded at the end.

a) Stay always within the historical, social, cultural & religious (ancient) contexts, when studying each event & writing.
b) Acknowledge that people in the 1st/2nd century (most of them illiterate) had some common sense (& religious aspirations) and were living mostly in a secular, "low-tech" (& unscholarly!) world: they thought in real time (their own day to day present).
c) Consider the (early) Christian texts as written by "flesh & blood "persons (and not necessarily scholars!) likely to have human motives (sometimes very obvious), and as addressed to contemporaries. Then research the circumstances surrounding their compositions.
d) Have an all-encompassing view: everything of any pertinence has to be investigated, from all sources available, more so the closest (in time) to the facts.
e) Determine with accuracy (and great efforts!) the sequence of events, timing and the dating of writings (that's lacking into many scholarly works), because that provides another dimension, the most crucial one: many (preceding & following) points are considerably affected by the dating & sequencing.
f) Do not charge with some theory/concept (yours or borrowed) because it suits you (unfortunately, agenda-driven works are prevalent nowadays).
g) Sort out the evidence and check it in depth (accuracy, validity, context, correct translation, etc., for each bits), by way of critical analysis. Justify any rejection with good reasons, preferably many of them.
h) Do not ignore "down to earth", obvious, mundane or trivial details (usually considered unworthy of scholarly interest). Do not overlook contradictions and oddities (as you would for the work of a subordinate, as a detective would for a suspect, as a legal officer would for an eyewitness!). Pay attention to "against the grain" and embarrassing bits (they might be telling!).
i) Follow the evidence, stay close to it, allow it to "discipline" & direct you: avoid free intellectual extrapolations & speculations (we have enough of those!).
j) Practice reality checks along the way: avoid absurdities.
k) Stay on the right track, on solid ground; do not hesitate to turn back when a trail is disappearing; explore all options, but remember, only one can be correct (& not necessarily the first one which pops out from the top of your head!).
l) Accept what you discover, rather than decide first what to find & reject.
m) Be scrupulous: "fudging" & "ignoring" NOT allowed (why should I fool myself & my readers? And this website will not advance my career or make money for me!).
n) Reject ill-substantiated assumptions, even if they are widely "swallowed" (beware of "studies" which accept them, either unannounced ("transparent") or with a short introduction!).
o) Look somewhere else if you need long discussions to justify your position.
p) Provide (concisely & accurately) the whole evidence & argumentation for each step (to keep you honest and prevent unproven claims to creep in): each piece of the puzzle must stand on its own.
q) Go back over all the preceding points because later findings are bound to have implications on previous understandings (and vice versa. I never said it was an "auto-pilot" one-way process. Beware of simplistic methodologies!). Examine back everything, including the options you chose along the way (everything has to fit, but keep observing all the points!). Do it over & over, again & again ...

This is what I tried to abide by, but if any one of my readers objects on these points or thinks I do not adhere to them (or missed some other ones), please let me know (but be specific!). Contact me here.

And if, (despite) complying with all the aforementioned, overall & throughout COHERENCE of the reconstruction is achieved, then you succeeded.
If not, well, either it cannot be done (according to the available evidence) OR you went wrong someplace!

Actually, there is very little I found trustworthy in the stories about Jesus.
What I retain is summarized by that:
From http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html:

1) Right after Pilate took over as procurator (and/or prefect) in Judea (fall of 26CE), there is an unprecedented series of events in Jerusalem & Cesarea (Josephus' Wars II, IX, 2-3 & Ant., XVIII, III, 1), with exceptionally good outcomes, inviting the Jews to think God is back looking after them. Also, this episode weakens Pilate's rule, allowing for John the Baptist (JtB) and the many Jews going to him (and later a certain royal welcome near Jerusalem) (HJ-1b).

2) JtB attracts large crowds for a few months (spring of 27CE), preaching God's Kingdom (of the old prophecies) is near, better to be "cleansed" in order to avoid the accompanying God's wrath (HJ-1b).

3) Jesus enters here, so far as a lower class, uneducated, rural Jew from Galilee (HJ-1a).
He stays around JtB, among others (HJ-1b).

4) Jesus goes to Capernaum right after JtB's arrest. Then two small successive events happen on Sabbath day, creating a short-lived hysteria around Jesus' alleged healing power (HJ-2a).

5) After Jesus is credited to have healed a man with skin disease (in the nearby villages), another hysteria takes hold and gets known all the way to Jerusalem (80 miles away) and beyond (HJ-2a).

6) Peripherally, Jesus talks about a (down to earth) message well adapted to the times (right after JtB's one: "Kingdom to come") and his milieu (rural Galilee): the Kingdom is coming soon (on earth) and it will benefit only the poor (Jews) (HJ-2b).

7) At that time, JtB, rumored to be the future (human) ruler (king) of the Kingdom (HJ-1b), is executed by Herod Antipas (HJ-3a).

8) Then, some Judean/Hellenist activist Jews interpret the healings by Jesus as a Sign; and he is thought to be the One, replacing (or possessed by) JtB (that's not a leap of faith, this part is multi-documented in GMark) (HJ-3a).

9) So, next spring, Jesus gets a "royalish" welcome by some near Jerusalem, days before the Passover (HJ-3a).

10) He feels encouraged enough to do the disturbance ("cleansing" in the temple) (HJ-3a).

11) Because of that (and the welcome), he is soon arrested (abandoned by the Galileans) and crucified (without trials and as a deterrent) with a mocking sign, "the king of the Jews" (spring of 28CE) (HJ-3a).

12) Later, another event (Josephus' Wars II, IX, 4 & Ant., XVIII, III, 2) will make most Jews doubt the Kingdom (to come soon) and re-establish Roman full authority (and fear) over Judea. But some hellenized Jews will keep the hope alive by looking at certain recent events, the Scriptures, Pharisaic beliefs, Philo of Alexandria's writings, etc. ... (see HJ-3b for the post-crucifixion beginning of Christianity)

That's it. Now, if you want to see the justifications and details for all that, you need to read the rest of my website!

Cordially, Bernard

[Michael BG]

Bernard,

I thought you would disagree with me regarding Lk 12:8-9. I see at least two issues with what you wrote, but I am not going to discuss them in this thread (I think one of them we have discussed in another thread). This thread is about the lack of the title Christ in Q and what reasons there could be for its theology being so different from Paul’s.

My original position was that Q and Paul’s letters were written about the same time. If I take on board that there was not a long editorial life for Q and the layers are just different elements, then the date for Q could be earlier than 60 CE. The question then arises – how early could it be? (c 40 CE?).

Does 1 Cor. 1:12 show that not all “Christians” in Corinth believed Jesus was the Christ?

What I mean is that each one of you says, "I belong to Paul," or "I belong to Apol'los," or "I belong to Cephas," or "I belong to Christ."

Can 1 Cor. 3:4-6 be read in a way that the message of Apollos was not the same as Paul’s as Christ is not mentioned?

[4] For when one says, "I belong to Paul," and another, "I belong to Apol'los," are you not merely men?
[5] What then is Apol'los? What is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, as the Lord assigned to each.
[6] I planted, Apol'los watered, but God gave the growth.

Is the different gospel of Gal. 1:6-9 one in which Jesus is not Christ?

Do James, Cephas and John allow Paul to preach Jesus with the title Christ outside of Palestine and Syria in Gal. 2:9-10?

If we have evidence that Paul’s message about Jesus was slightly different from that being preached by Cephas, can we see the theology of Q as the message which Cephas preached?

[Bernard Muller]

to Michael BG,

Does 1 Cor. 1:12 show that not all “Christians” in Corinth believed Jesus was the Christ?

"Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ."
I think that Paul is referring to Corinthians who only accepted his preaching, and those who only accepted the teaching of Apollos and whose who only accepted the testimony of Cephas/Peter, and those "of Christ'" who combined what they heard from the three men (as complementing each other). I am rather certain they did not heard from Cephas/Peter that Jesus was the Christ, nor that Jesus was divine or extraordinary (http://historical-jesus.info/108.html).
Did the ones "of Peter" believed that Cephas/Peter was not telling everything? probably in my view.
However both Paul and Apollos (which I take as the author of 'Hebrews') said that Jesus was the Christ.

My original position was that Q and Paul’s letters were written about the same time. If I take on board that there was not a long editorial life for Q and the layers are just different elements, then the date for Q could be earlier than 60 CE. The question then arises – how early could it be? (c 40 CE?).

I am sure that a good chunk of Q was written after 70 CE and when gMark was known.
For the remaining, when Peter was heard about his testimony about Jesus outside Judea (like in Antioch & Corinth), and then either written or remembered, I am not sure. But according to my investigation, Peter went to Antioch in 52 CE (but also possibly before that), and later to Corinth in the same year. As explained in http://historical-jesus.info/appp.html

Is the different gospel of Gal. 1:6-9 one in which Jesus is not Christ?

I do not think so. I do not see Paul in 'Galatians' saying that. The preachers, trying to get Paul's converts into their camp, were likely Jewish Christians, who stressed the need for the converts to obey the Law of Moses in order to be saved.

Do James, Cephas and John allow Paul to preach Jesus with the title Christ outside of Palestine and Syria in Gal. 2:9-10?

Jewish Christians from Antioch were preaching Jesus was the Christ (the "anointed") before Paul did. So the pillars had to tolerate Paul about that.

If we have evidence that Paul’s message about Jesus was slightly different from that being preached by Cephas, can we see the theology of Q as the message which Cephas preached?

Peter's testimony is summarized by the 17 sayings and some anecdotes about a rather not divine, not extraordinary Jew, in the line of how I describe Jesus' last year in http://historical-jesus.info/digest.html and what Paul wrote in his epistles about poor, humble, servant_of_the_Jews Jesus. Nether Peter, nor the church of Jerusalem were into Christology or Theology. They just accepted Jesus as a dead prophet who showed the way to salvation.

Cordially, Bernard

[robert j]

Jewish Christians from Antioch were preaching Jesus was the Christ (the "anointed") before Paul did ...

Without resorting to the later legends and traditions promoted in Acts of the Apostles --- using only Paul’s letters --- can you demonstrate that?

[andrewcriddle]

IF for example the Q community believed that Jesus was only revealed as Messiah at his resurrection, then their account of the pre-resurrection sayings of Jesus probably would not involve Jesus claiming to be the Messiah.

As a possible parallel, assuming the same author of Luke and Acts, there is more explicit Christology in Acts and in the first 2 chapters of Luke than in the main section of Luke. Early Christian writers IMO could distinguish between their Christology and their account of the earthly ministry of Jesus.

More generally, I am dubious about a Q community all of the beliefs of which are explicit in the surviving Q material.

Andrew Criddle

In Luke there is Christology and the word Christ appears 12 times, if we exclude chapters 1,2 and 24, it appears 8 times – 3:15, 4:41, 9:20, 20:41, 22:67, 23:2, 23:35 and 23:39. Acts I think is a little longer and the word Christ appears 26 times.

I don’t think Mark, Matthew, Luke or John distinguish their Christology between before crucifixion and afterwards.

See for example christology of Acts arguing that Lord is used as a title of Jesus much more in Acts than in Luke.

Andrew Criddle

[MrMacSon]

What "Q Community"? Where? When?