James and Q

James and Q
are writings which claim to know the life story of Jesus Christ and both lie within the Wisdom Tradition.
Introduction - What is James?
Epistle of James is found in the New Testament and is known to be the most enigmatic writings found in this collection. The letters of James appears to lie the closest to Jesus’ spirit/message because it demonstrates a connection between the Old and New Testament in existing through the transition of recognizing Jesus to be the son of God. It reflects traditional Jewish perspective yet it also reflects the stylistic language of the New Testament Books. The writing of James provides the closest link to Judaism and its connection to Christianity as it takes recognition in the foundational origin and also reinforces strong Christian didacticism.
The letters of James was only accepted as part of the Christian canon in the 4th century AD. James has been criticized more recently upon discussing its validity as Christian writing. Martin Dibelius argument as James as Paranaesis ( “a book of slogans”), he argued that the passages found within James appear to be strung together by means of catchwords and adjoined isolated sayings that dealt with ethical conduct Dibelius states that one of its noted characteristics is in its lack of continuity which again supports this idea of James as a Paranaesis text. Dibelius also comments on the fact that it is impossible to view James as a letter because it lacks epistolary remarks and appears to fit more with the Paranaesis tradition . James has also been criticized for its lack of reference to Jesus Christ (1:1; 2:1) however there are a number of references which echo Jesus’ teachings and sayings . The text does not make reference to Jesus’ death and his resurrection, similar to the writings of Q. However, James does describe a Jesus who encounters a relationship between community and God. The instructions found in James writing appears to build up the community and to socialize the individual into the larger community of believers .
Nonetheless, James maintains the connection which Christian and Jews hold in linking Judaic references along with a Christian reminder of where their religion is founded from.
Introduction - What is Q?
Q, is believed to be known as a “saying’s gospel” and has been recognized as the earliest gospel. Q is often used for logical necessity and is used to help make sense of the synoptic problem. Although the question as to where the Q source has disappeared to, many scholars use the Q tradition to help solidify any concerns about which gospels came first and which gospel interprets the real historical Jesus. The material not found in Matthew and Luke, taken from Mark amounts to approximate 4,500 words; this makes up for a section which is suggested to be drawn from the Q source
Similar to the Epistle of James, Q does not cover material which narrates Jesus’ death or his resurrection. This is an interesting similarity between the two texts as they both ignore an important element of Jesus’ life. In considering Q as a gospel alone is questionable because according to every early Christian Gospel writer, speaking of Jesus’ death is an integral part of gospel writing It is suggested then that Q was meant to be read by those who were aware of Jesus’ death and resurrection and in reading Q it assumes knowledge in this event.
Q fits into the wisdom tradition as many of its writings apply didactic elements of Jesus’ teachings. This framework placed Q as a sayings tradition which tended to associate the speaker of the wise sayings with what Kloppenborg describes as the heavenly Sophia - in having a Gnostic viewpoint of “hidden sayings”
Wisdom Literature in James & Q
According to Patrick J. Hartin, he describes Wisdom Literature as, “Wisdom literature communicates advice and instructions by one in authority (king, teacher, parent, based upon his or her experience of how to lead life successfully and live according to wisdom” .
In following this tradition, James and Q fit into this description as the very structure of both gospels providing this type of tone. Wisdom in James ends at 1:4 ends with this call to wholeness which asks its hearers/readers to seek wisdom. As a call to community, Q’s sayings also regard importance in this subject. Both James and Q offer practical advice to the reader and concern itself with the present and also look out to future references as teachings for Christian individuals. Although death and the resurrection of Christ do not influence wisdom in the readings of James and Q, the future eschatological age does. This referral to eschatology in James and Q’s sayings recognize that these gospels do take interest in ‘final matters’, they are just not expressed through the context of Jesus Christ’s death and resurrection portrayal. However both writings do take notice of addressing final matters which are expressed through a didactic form in the Epistles of James and Q sayings.
Examples of Wisdom sayings in Q:
*“A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully taught will be more like his teacher” (Q 6.40)
*“Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven” (Q 6. 37).
Examples of Wisdom sayings in James:
*“For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment” (Jas 2.13).
*“Let not many of you become teachers, my breathren, for you know that we who teach shall be judged with greater strictness” (Jas 3.1).
Could James know Q?
Hartin poses the question between the relationship of James and Q and conclude that:
Either, Both James and Q are dependent upon a common tradition OR James is dependent directly on the Q tradition.
Kloppenborg argues that conclusions can only be made if James betrays knowledge of the editorial features of Q, instead of sharing some of the same sayings which James and Q agree upon. In terms of editorial features, one may consider the language of James and Q, and the word choice discussed within both texts.
For example, consider the two examples:
*“If someone lacks wisdom let him ask it from the God who gives to all simply and without reproach, and it will be given to him ” (James 1:5).
*“I tell you, ask and it will be given to you , search and you will find, knock and it will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives, and the one who searches finds, and to the one who knocks will it be opened” (Q 11:9-10).
In both James and Q, both address the issue of asking and receiving and associate it with seeking wisdom in life. Both texts suggest that wisdom is not given but must be earned and in recognizing those who lack it. It also suggests a didactic element in asking to become greater in life and in always trying to upgrade one’s status. The idea of lacking wisdom refers to the “now” and in acquiring it by asking applies to the “later”. These connections between the two texts both situate themselves to discuss the relationship of how they propose wisdom.
Boundaries of James and Q
As Kloppenborg argues, one must consider the editorial features of both James and Q when comparing both texts to search for congruency. Polag’s redaction of Q is the most recent reconstruction of Q from the Greek period to date. He divides Q’s sayings into 11 smaller groups which withhold a common theme, these groups are listed as:
Reconstruction text of Q by Polag
* (A) Introduction
* (B) Sermon on the Mount
* (C) John the Baptist
* (D) Mission of the disciples
* (E) On prayer
* (F) Controversies
* (G) On acknowledgement
* (H) On proper concerns
* (I) Parables
* (K) On the responsibility of disciples
* (L) On judgment
In considering these groups, it helps brings us closer to a more definitive conclusion and show where James and Q compare specifically. The most notable connections between the two texts were in Block B: the Sermon on the mount and in Block E: on prayer. Some connections also were found in Block H: on proper concerns, Block K: on the responsibility of the disciples, and Block I: on parables. Based on the 11 blocks of material Polag identifies with Q, there are connections with James in at least half of these groups. Ultimately this suggests that Q is no limited to one block of tradition but shows that there is familiarity and use of material from different unrelated blocks of Q material. It also enforces the number of allusions to a wide-range of Jesus tradition because there were so many similarities between the sub divisions in Polag`s reconstruction of Q with James, it shows that the similarities between both gospels are not narrowed down to one frame piece of Jesus` life. Lastly it proves that James to Q material are independent of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (as they support their own congruencies) which are significant in bearing witness to the existence of the Q source.
James, Q, Matthew and Luke
In considering the relationship of James and Q, it is good to consider how other gospels use these sources to understand what type of material is comparable within the Jesus tradition. Below is a chart formed by Hartin, which describes the correspondence between James and the synoptic tradition. It draws emphasis to how Q is adapted to James, Matthew and Luke and compares the representation of James material and questions if it shows a tendency to lie closer to Matthew`s version of Q or to Luke`s version of Q.
File:JamesnQ1-1-.jpg
File:JamesnQ2-1-.jpg
The chart is designed to look at the 26 parallels found within James and Q and how it compares to the gospels of Matthew and Luke. For example, parallel number 16 looks at those who mourn and weep. First one must consider the quotes found in James and Luke which state,
James 4:9, “Be afflicted, and mourn, and weep: let your laughter be turned to mourning, and your joy to heaviness.”
Luke 6:25, “Woe to you that are full now, for you shall hunger. Woe to you that laugh now, for you shall mourn and weep.”
In this analysis, James is found to be similar to Q is in using the verb to mourn. This can be further discussed in looking at how the Lucan woe is represented in Lk 6.25. Thus this suggests that there is a possibility that the Lucan woes originally formed part of the Q sermon. It also shows that James and Luke have utilized a traditional sayings of Jesus and have adapted it to the context of their own teaching. This shows James to have a closer relationship with Jesus tradition and demonstrates an awareness of this material before it was firmly fixed in the form and structure of the woes expressed in Q`s Luke version.
Conclusions
In comparing James and Q material, many conclusions have been interpreted to question how these gospels were intended to be used. One of Kloppenborg`s interpretations is that James is an index of how Q was intended to be used and poses then that perhaps Q is seen to be a resource rather than a source. In considering the wisdom tradition, both texts convey meaningful attributes to how the Jesus tradition is set up and how they integrate how wisdom should be interpreted to the larger community. It is also important to consider that scholars who do not support the two-source hypothesis would not necessarily support the assertions made on this topic and would lead to different interpretations between the connection of James and Q.

Main Menu

See Also

Main Menu