Lukas und Q

Abstract

Lukas und Q: Studien zur lukanischen Redaktion des Spruchevangeliums Q, by Christoph Heil. BZNW 111. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2003. Pp. x + 444. euro98.00 (hardcover). ISBN 3110174340. After the epoch-making publication of The Critical Edition of Q, edited by James M. Robinson, Paul Hoffmann, and S. Kloppenborg (Leuven and Minneapolis, 2000), NT exegesis is looking forward to a new generation of studies clarifying the redactional processes that generated Matthew and Luke. Heil gives us such a study for Q and Luke, making use of the most sophisticated advances in redaction criticism. His methodology is essentially conservative, but by careful, detailed analysis and a very good grasp of everything we already know about the Gospels, he manages to add significantly to our overall view of how Luke interpreted Q. His soberness of approach, inherited perhaps from his teacher Paul Hoffmann, may disappoint those who have come to see Q research as a field of rather free reimaginings of early Christianity, but his concentration on facts of redactional history seems to me veiy welcome in our task of verifying and falsifying the large number of theories proposed in the last twenty years. On the other side, Heil vehemently, and I think rightly, takes a stand against those who confine themselves to a synchronie perspective: Werden Texte allein synchron untersucht, endet dies meist in einer mehr oder weniger geistreichen 'Nacherzahlung' (p. 30). Heil concentrates in the first half of his book on texts from the latter part of Q (Q 13:18-22:30), giving a detailed analysis of seventeen sayings and parables. This is a wise choice, as texts such as Q 6:20-23 have been treated quite fully by others, but we have only a smaller number of studies on these later traditions of Q. So Heil both adds to research in Q and Luke and summarizes it, always taking as his main point of reference the Critical Edition and the work of the International Q Project (of which he is a member). In his second major part Heil outlines similarities and differences between Q and Luke in the following areas: Women, Rich and Poor, Town and Countryside, John the Baptist, Jesus, Kingdom of God, Son of Man, Wisdom, Spirit, Scripture and Law, Israel, the Jews, Gentiles, Imminent Expectation of the End, Delay of the End, Judgment, and last but not least Ethics. Heil also discusses the genre of Q and Luke (see especially pp. 231-32, where he characterizes Luke as a Jesusbiographie gewissem historiographischem Anspruch . . . mit unterhaltendromanhaften Elementen) and outlines some conclusions for the author of the Gospel of Luke, whom he sees as a Gentile Christian (p. 366), writing perhaps in Ephesus (pp. 24, 257). No theories about different forms of Q (Q^sup Mt^ and Q^sup Lk^) are deemed necessary (p. 9). Like Hoffmann, Heil sees the final redaction of Q taking place rather late, during the Jewish war (pace G. Theisen and others [p. 9]). Sometimes Heil contradicts much-cherished theories (see especially pp. 237-38 on women in Q and Luke and also his many passing remarks on cynicism and Q, as on pp. 102, 241, 286, and 302). Both near future eschatology and realized eschatology are seen as part of the original Jesus tradition that found its way into Q (pp. 284-85). Though Q usually uses the LXX, Q 7:27 shows some contact with Masoretic textual traditions (p. 312 n. 5). Luke, on the other hand, uses his Bible einmal detailverliebt und ein andermal hastig (p. 317). Of course, every scholar participating in Q research will disagree with one point or another made by Heil, but Heil's position is always well argued. I do not see, for example, any necessity for separating Q 13:24-25 and 26-27 (p. 50): the two sayings are put together by catch-word connection, a phenomenon usually much underrated for Q that can also be observed in Thomas. …