reexAMINING Q2: SoN oF God CHrISToLoGy 69 composition the Q group had suffered rejection in those towns. The unannounced shift in form, tone and address from the missionaries (10,2-12.16) to the group’s Galilean opposition (10,13-15) signals the presence of a redactional hand quite clearly. The speech then shifts back to the missionaries and Q1 material in 10,16. Following 10,16 we encounter the second Q2 interpolation, the thanksgiving 10,21-22 in which Jesus can be seen expressing gratitude not only for the Q group’s privileged status as the sole recipients of God’s revelation but more importantly for the group’s failure to convince their opposition. Finally, a beatitude blessing those who witness the presently unfolding events (10,23-24) concludes the speech; this closing unit could have originated in either compositional layer 21. After this point, the recon- structed Q text moves to the Lord’s prayer (11,2-4), leaving the themes of the mission and its failure behind and thereby marking the beginning of a new section. It seems clear enough that the apologetic outlook of 10,21-22 is not compatible with the instruction found in 10,2-12.16. In Q1, the author appeared to have anticipated a swift mission (10,4) which was to act as the precursor of the eschatological harvest in that the group’s recipients would effectively decide their own fate by either accepting or rejecting the missionaries (10,2.5-12) 22. In 10,21-22, however, the group’s apparent rejection in Galilee receives a rather unexpected legitimization: the opposition was never expected to understand and accept the mission’s proclamation. Instead, the Galilean failure (10,12-15) is interpreted as a predetermined outcome, a part of God’s plan. According to that logic, the mission’s objective (to offer its recipients a choice) never stood a chance — a direct contradiction of the Q1 outlook. clearly belongs with the preceding material rather than with the woes. A more de- tailed discussion of its compositional origin falls outside the scope of this essay and must be undertaken elsewhere. 21 Because of its obviously secondary attachment to 10,21-22, it is extremely difficult to determine whether 10,23-24 belongs with (Q1) 10,2-11.16, or with (Q2) 10,12-15.21-22. A good argument could be made either way. Q 10,23-24 does not engage the motif of the mission’s rejection which underscores the previous Q2 interpolation in 10,12-15. Instead the beatitude employs a positive, optimistic tone similar to the one detected in the Q1 mission instruction (10,2- 11.16). For that reason I lean toward retaining 10,23-24 in Q1. 22 d.C. ALLISoN, Jr., The Intertextual Jesus. Scripture in Q (Harrisburg, pA 2000) 145-147; A.d. JACoBSoN, The First Gospel. An Introduction to Q (Sono- ma, CA 1992) 143-148, esp.147-148; KLoppeNBorG, Formation, 236.