reexAMINING Q2: SoN oF God CHrISToLoGy 77 speeches in ancient Jewish literature include 1 Sam 15,17b-19.22-23; Isa 1,2-8; Jer 2,4-37. As in those examples, Q 6,37-42 features (a) a specification of the offense (Q 6,37-38; cf. 1 Sam 15,17c-19.23a-c; Isa 1,2b; Jer 2,8.13); (b) interrogation and proverbial wisdom implicating the accused party in committing the said offense (Q 6,39-42a; cf. 1 Sam 15,17b.19.22; Isa 1,3.5-6; Jer 2,14.17-18.23a); (c) a direct accu- sation of the guilty party (Q 6,42b; cf. 1 Sam 15,19; Isa 1,4; Jer 2,20a.23b-24.25b). To this polemical sequence in Q 6,37-42 one would do well to add 6,43-45; the parable of the two trees clearly il- lustrates the main point of the preceding accusation, namely that a good disciple should speak properly 47. This means that approximately one third of the sermon (6,37-45) consists of inner-communal polemic probably caused by a conflict within the Q group. The tone and form of this extended sequence, as well as the concluding general accusa- tion and judgment parable 6,46-49, are anything but overwhelmingly sapiential. They do, however, fit in rather well with the Q2 composi- tional layer and its polemical framework (which includes at least one other inner-communal judgment parable in 19,12-26). IV. Conclusion: Son of God Christology in Q2 The three texts analyzed in this essay (Q 4,1-13; 6,20b-49; 10,21- 22) have not heretofore been coordinated in such a way as to espouse a common Christological and polemical agenda. Indeed, in the leading theory of contemporary Q studies, that of John S. Kloppenborg, all three are assigned to separate compositional layers. As I hope to have shown above, however, coordinating these texts in a single stratum re- sults in a stronger Q compositional model. My hypothesis can be sum- marized as follows: (a) the concept of Jesus’ unique sonship rather than Sophia Christology lies behind 10,21-22; (b) the related title o` ui`oj, (tou/ qeou/) found in 4,1-13 and 10,21-22 provides the validation for Jesus as the messianic o` ui`o.j tou/ avnqrw,pou and as ku,rioj in Q2’s Christological framework; (c) the Q sermon 6,20b-49 reflects that framework and therefore also belongs in Q2. This hypothesis, if correct, raises a number of urgent questions of which I will highlight but two. First, with the relocation of 6,20-49 to Q2, the document’s formative layer loses what has been viewed until now as its most important text. This holds serious implications for the 47 FITzMyer, Luke I–IX, 643.