03_Biblica_Foster_Layout 1 08/07/13 12:56 Pagina 385 385 IS Q A “JEWISH CHRISTIAN” DOCUMENT? on the Kingdom is not clear. For those who wish to assert that Q is Jewish Christian, the protagonists could be presented as Paulinists or as people with a related perspective, advocating a law-free gospel. Al- ternatively, in order to support an interpretation of Q as limiting the validity of Torah, the doers of violence could be cast as Pharisaic or synagogue based opponents. Either option is circular in its reasoning since it interprets the undisclosed group in such a way as to support the hypothesis that is to be established concerning the attitude of Q to the law. The final saying on divorce (Q 16.18) may be presented as an example of how Torah functions for the readers of Q. Here Jesus’ ruling on divorce overrides a permission to divorce that is provided in the Mosaic law 54. Therefore, discussing this specific case, Fledder- mann observes that “the demands of the kingdom radicalize and tran- scend the Law by tightening its demands even further” 55. An alternative possibility is not that an initial proposition (Q 16.16) has been subjected to a series of two correctives, but that the central assertion of Q 16.17 concerning the ongoing validity of the law, per- haps held by more conservative members of the Q community 56, has been framed by two traditions which reveal a more progressive atti- tude in favor of replacing the law. Hence, even more so than was the case with the attitude towards synagogues, Q reveals an ambiguous and complex perspective on the role of the law. It would appear that the compiler of these traditions was walking a tightrope, both preserv- ing traditions that affirmed the law, which may have been important to long-term group members, and simultaneously modifying those traditions and juxtaposing them with more progressive ideas. Perhaps this reveals why the author was happy to let the tension between Q 16.16 and 16.17 stand in the document: because it reflected the social tensions in the group. Consequently, no clear picture emerges of the social location of Q, or its intended audience from the two fleeting references to the law. For a discussion of this tradition as it occurs in its Matthean form see 54 FOSTER, Community, Law and Mission, 106-113. FLEDDERMANN, Q: A Reconstruction and Commentary, 791. 55 Nolland has noted that the sentiment expressed in Lk 16.17 has often 56 been “attributed to later rigorist Jewish Christians”, and not to the historical Jesus. While Nolland’s description is correct, it is not the purpose of the pres- ent discussion to determine the vexed question of the attitude of the historical Jesus. J.A. NOLLAND, Luke 9:21-18:34, (WBC 35B; Dallas, TX 1993) 816. © Gregorian Biblical Press 2013 - Tutti i diritti riservati