Abstract
In this monograph Llewellyn Howes reassesses the content and message of the formative stratum or earliest layer of Q, in line with model proposed by John Kloppenborg in 1987. For Howes the time is now ripe for such a reassessment due to developments ‘in both Q research and historical Jesus studies’ (p. 2) during the intervening years. The book also proposes several new interpretations of the material in this formative layer. For Howes, his positionality on the African continent provides fresh insights. He states, ‘[m]y experience both of and with poverty, for instance, affects how I look at the world and how I read texts, allowing me to see elements and nuances others might miss’ (p. 3).
Howes states that he has defended his acceptance of the stratigraphical model of Q in an earlier monograph, hence no sustained defence is provided in this new volume. However, it is possible to anticipate that some will find this to be a key point of challenge. In fact Howes, unlike Kloppenborg, finds the contents of a tradition to be an important indication of the stratum of Q to which it should be assigned. Kloppenborg classified material on generic grounds, and as a consequence identified the sapiential character of the formative layer in distinction to the apocalyptic eschatological concerns of the second layer, which is the main redaction of the Q document. In distinction from Kloppenborg, Howes asserts having identified these content differences that it is possible to make ‘use of these findings as criteria when considering the placement of individual traditions in Q’ (p. 6). Howes rejects the presence of eschatology in the formative layer, and uses the contrast between sapiential and eschatological material as a determinative factor in the placement of material in either of the two layers. Many scholars will remain unconvinced about the need, or even the plausibility of stratifying Q. However, alongside this, the absolute divide that Howes enforces between eschatological and wisdom material is unlikely to persuade all readers. Rather, many see these features as two sides of the same coin. That is both aspects were held together by early followers of Jesus who sought to preserve his pithy wise maxims and his teaching on ultimate, future divine vindication when the poor would receive reversal of their earthy status in the coming kingdom.
Howes main argument comes in chapters 1-9, where he postulates that the following eight traditions assigned to the main redactional layer by Kloppenborg actually are part of the formative layer. This eight traditions are Q 10:21, 23-24 (chap. 1); Q 11:33-35 (chap. 2); Q 12:39 (chap. 3); Q 12:42-44 (chap. 4); Q 12:58-59 (chap 5); Q 13:25 (chap. 7); Q 14:16-21, 23 (chap. 8); and Q 19:12-13, 15-24 (chap. 9). Chapter 6 is different. It argues Q 13:18-21, which was assigned by Kloppenborg to the formative layer, does indeed belong to that initial layer. However, Howes proposes a new interpretation. He states, that there ‘is no need for a current cessation of the current world to establish God’s kingdom’ (p. 193), but these two parables contain a sapiential appeal to nature to describe the present reality of divine providence.
Perhaps some will find this discussion of the contents of the hypothetical layers of a document they find equally hypothetical to be an unnecessarily speculative debate. However, there is much to be learnt here about the character of early Jesus material, along with a set of fresh interpretations of several of those traditions. This is indeed a book that will generate continued conversation among those interested in Q, and as such it is a welcome addition to scholarship on gospel sources and the history of the Jesus tradition.