64 oLeGS ANdreJeVS Q’s value to New Testament studies indeed has much to do with the use of several prominent Christological titles by the document’s authors. Among those titles, o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou and its correlative o` evrco,menoj have received much attention in contemporary New Testa- ment scholarship. In this essay I focus on two other designations of Jesus in Q: o` ui`o,j (tou/ qeou/) and ku,rioj. The former title can be re- constructed with certainty only in the thanksgiving of Jesus (Q 10,21- 22, o` ui`o,j) and in the temptation story (Q 4,1-13, o` ui`o.j tou/ qeou/), two textual units that have proven difficult to stratify with respect to Q’s compositional layers 6. Meanwhile, the title ku,rioj is employed in Q not only Christologically but also with reference to yHWH, creating a certain degree of confusion and leading some scholars to conclude that when used of Jesus it should be translated only as “master” 7. In what follows I put forth the case that the titles o` ui`o,j (tou/ qeou/) and ku,rioj are closely related and form a part of the author’s Christological apologetic in the wake of the Q group’s failed Galilean mission. To support this hypothesis I first analyze the two texts describing Jesus as God’s ui`o,j (10,21-22; 4,1-13), showing that they form a part of the same compositional layer and Christological framework. After that, I examine the document’s first and most extensive presentation of Jesus as ku,rioj (6,20b-49) for compatibility with the above framework. The ultimate goal of this endeavor will be to attempt to illuminate an important intermediate stage in the formation of Q’s early Christology. I. Q 10,21-22 and the Christology of the Q2 Stratum It is necessary to begin with an assessment of the present consensus regarding Q’s compositional history, which remains to a considerable degree based on John S. Kloppenborg’s research. This compositional theory of Q was first articulated in 1987 in Formation of Q. According to that theory, Q consisted of three compositional stages. The earliest, formative stage (designated Q1) was characterized as a compilation of 6 The Q origin of the baptism legend (3,21-22) remains disputed. If reconstructed as featuring the title ui`oj, (a hypothesis far from certain), it would further strengthen the case made in this essay. However, owing to the difficult nature of the text’s re- construction and the high degree of conjecture it involves, I have opted against engaging the baptism legend. For the reconstruction of Q 3,21-22 with the title ui`o,j, see roBINSoN – HoFFMANN – KLoppeNBorG, Critical Edition of Q, 18-21. 7 IQp translates ku,rioj as “master” in 6,46; 7,6; 9,59; 12,42-46; 13,25; 14,21; 19,12-26. roBINSoN – HoFFMANN – KLoppeNBorG, Critical Edition of Q, 94, 108, 154, 366-375, 408, 442, 524-555.