Originally Posted by DCHindley

As the last sentence indicates, it was not Q that does this, but the gospel authors who utilize it. Jesus was, they admit, executed by crucifixion as "king of the Jews" etc. However, they want it known that Jesus was killed out of "jealousy" of the Jewish aristocracy, because he has embarassed them through his folksy wit. Q supplied the folksy wit.

If I am not mistaken, though, Mack stratified Q into layers that start with Q1 ("primary instructions addressed to the community" = pithy wisdom sayings) and progress to Q2a ("judgemental sayings addressed to 'this generation'") to Q2b ("instructions to the community in the light of the judgemental sayings addressed to 'this generation'"), finally ending with Q3 ("provides a little window into the Q community after the war").

Q1 is involved with Jesus' teaching, instructions for movement, confidence in the Father's care, on anxiety and speaking out, on personal goods, parables of the kingdom, and the true followers of Jesus.

Q2a deals with John's preaching, what John & Jesus thought, pronouncements against towns, controversies with 'this generation', judgement on 'this generation', pronouncement against the Pharisees, the coming judgement, the two ways, and the final judgement.

Q2b is concerned with congratulations to persons, caution on taking sides, true enlightenment, on public confessions, and community rules.

Q3 for its part introduces "three new themes" (1) mythology of Jesus as the son of God (2) the relationship of Jesus as son of God to the (now destroyed) temple in Jerusalem and (3) the authority of scriptures.

In other words, a progression from simple wisdom teaching to conflict with Judean authority figures and regions and their judgement to rationalization as to what it all really meant in light of the war. Judaism has to be actually injected into Q teaching.

Q2 may well be actual Jesus sayings, all piss and vinegar. My suspicion is that Q1 was an example of generic wisdom lore (it may not have even been Jewish in origin) utilized by the Q redactor (Q3) to show that Jesus was something more than what the Jesus of Q2 was all about (kind of like Apollonius of Tyana, but not necessarily based on him).

Finally, the authors of gMatt & gLuke used the redacted Q to further show that Jesus was not the revolutionary that the mode of his death would suggest. Q3 suggests that the gospel authors were not the first to try to distance themselves from the revolutionary aspects of the Jesus movement's origins.

DCH

Originally Posted by Zeichman

I can't really disagree with your characterization of Mack's work. However, the anti-gentile bias in Q1 materials would seem to indicate that its origins are Israelite.

I would stick with Kloppenborg's compositional history; Mack makes many problematic changes. If you've got access to a good interlibrary loan system, you might check out th Burton Mack Festschrift, Reimagining Christian Origins (or via: amazon.co.uk) and look specifically for James Robinson's contribution, which summarizes nicely the problems of Mack's work on Q.

Originally Posted by davidsimons

We seem to have gone off on a tangent here!

My question asked why George A. Wells changed his mind regarding the possible
historical existence of a Jesus/Galilean preacher that influenced early Christian
thinking. It is suggested that Q influenced him. However I find it strange
that:

(i)Q, a strand of tradition which is purely hypothetical, has caused
such a major change in Wells' thinking.
(ii)Why Wells, as I commented, has also conceded a early 1st century CE
dating for this 'actual itinerant Galilean preacher'.

In sum, my question is why has Wells apparently given way to much
more than one would expect...
Can anyone throw any light on this please?

David.