Page 1 of 5
Original Research
‘Cut in two’, Part 1: Exposing the Seam in Q 12:42−46
Author:
Llewellyn Howes1
Ailiaion:
1
Department of Religion
Studies, University of
Johannesburg, South Africa
This publication argues for the existence of a seam between verses 44 and 45 of the parable in
Q 12:42–46. In the process, a case is also made for identifying the second half of the parable (Q
12:45–46) as a redactional addition to a more original first half (Q 12:42–44). The arguments
that make up this article form the basis for a follow-up article on the redaction of Q 12:42–46
within the context of the Sayings Gospel as a whole.
Correspondence to:
Llewellyn Howes
Introducion
Email:
llewellynhowes@gmail.com
The parable of the loyal and wise slave, as I prefer to call it, appears in both Matthew (24:45–51)
and Luke (12:42–46). There is enough verbal and grammatical overlap between the two
versions to justify its place in Q (Crossan 1974:22; Dodd [1935] 1958:158; Funk & Hoover
1993:253; Luz 2005:221; Marshall 1978:533; Scott 1989:208–209; Taylor 1989:138; see Bock
1996:1171, n. 3). In their Critical Edition of Q, the International Q Project offers the following
reconstruction and translation of Q 12:42–46 (Robinson, Hoffmann & Kloppenborg 2000:
366–375, 2002:124–127):
Postal address:
1 Dormus, 281 Acacia Street,
Blackheath 2195,
South Africa
Dates:
Received: 12 Jan. 2015
Accepted: 14 Mar. 2015
Published: 22 June 2015
How to cite this aricle:
Howes, L., 2015, ‘“Cut in
two”, Part 1: Exposing the
Seam in Q 12:42−46”’,
HTS Teologiese Studies/
Theological Studies 71(1),
Art. #2910, 5 pages. htp://
dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.
v71i1.2910
Copyright:
© 2015. The Authors.
Licensee: AOSIS
OpenJournals. This work is
licensed under the Creaive
Commons Atribuion
License.
42
τίς ἄρα ἐστὶν ὁ πιστὸς δοῦλος [καὶ] φρόνιμος ὃν κατέστησεν ὁ κύριος ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκετείας αὐτοῦ τοῦ δο[ῦ]ναι
[αὐτοῖς] ἐν καιρῷ τὴν τροφὴν; 43μακάριος ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος, ὃν ἐλθὼν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ εὑρήσει οὕτως ποιοῦντα·
44
[ἀμὴν] λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι ἐπὶ πᾶσιν τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν αὐτοῦ καταστήσει αὐτόν. 45ἐὰν δὲ εἴπῃ ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος ἐν τῇ
καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ· χρονίζει ὁ κύριος μου, καὶ ἄρξηται τύπτειν τοὺς [συνδούλους αὐτοῦ], ἐσθί[ῃ] δὲ καὶ πίνῃ [μετὰ
τῶν] μεθυ[όντων], 46ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει, καὶ
διχοτομήσει αὐτὸν καὶ τὸ μέρος αὐτοῦ μετὰ τῶν ἀπίστων θήσει.
[42
Who then is the faithful [and] wise slave whom the master put over his household to give [them] food
on time? 43Blessed is that slave whose master, on coming, will find so doing. 44[Amen], I tell you, he will
appoint him over all his possessions. 45But if that slave says in his heart: My master is delayed, and begins
to beat [his fellow slaves], and eats and drinks [with the] drunk[ards],46 the master of that slave will come
on a day he does not expect and at an hour he does not know, and will cut him to pieces and give him an
inheritance with the faithless.]
Exposing the seam
Even from a superficial reading of the parable it is immediately evident that, on the one hand,
verses 42–44 belong together, and on the other, verses 45–46 belong together. A closer look at the
text supports such an intuitive observation. There are a number of textual indications that betray
a redactional seam between verses 44 and 45.
A double ending
Read online:
Scan this QR
code with your
smart phone or
mobile device
to read online.
The first and most obvious indication of a redactional seam between Q 12:42–44 and Q 12:45–46
is the parable’s idiosyncratic double ending. The parable of the loyal and wise slave is distinctive
in featuring two possible outcomes: one positive and one negative (cf. Allison 2004:439; Donahue
1988:98; Etchells 1998:110; Taylor 1989:141; Valantasis 2005:168). Without attempting to address
redactional development, Fleddermann (2005:628, 633, 635) tellingly labels verses 45–46 the
‘negative half of the parable’. The only other parable of Jesus to also feature both a positive and a
negative outcome is the parable of the wedding feast in Luke 12:35–38 (Kirk 1998:234).1 With both
parables, featuring a double ending is evidence of redactional development (cf. Funk 2006:30). It
is only logical to assume that the second ending represents redactional elaboration, not the first
ending. In addition, the artificiality of featuring the same character for two opposite endings
supports not only the proposal of a seam between verses 44 and 45, but also the claim that the
second ending is most probably secondary (cf. Blomberg1990:191; Bock 1996:1180; Crossan
1974:22; Jeremias [1958] 1963:55–56; Luz 2005:221, 222; Marshall 1978:542; see Funk 1974:53–54).
In being disloyal rather than loyal, and reckless rather than prudent, the second character does
1.I do not consider Q 6:47–49 to be a parable (cf. Luz 2005:221, 223).
htp://www.hts.org.za 473 doi:10.4102/hts.v71i1.2910
Page 2 of 5
not fit the criteria established by the opening question, but
contradicts them by veering off in a different direction (cf.
Nolland 2005:998). As Valantasis (2005:169) correctly notes:
‘A switch has taken place in the narrative.’
Original Research
internal dialogue (Allison 2004:441; Bock 1996:1181; Marshall
1978:542). The change in narrative mode is therefore quite
deliberate.
Redundant re-ideniicaion of character
Small forms
One cannot help but notice that the first half of the parable
is made up of a series of small forms. Each of the first three
verses qualifies technically as a separate literary small form
(Fleddermann 2005:627, 633, 635, 636; Jacobson 1992:197).
Verse 42 introduces the parable with a rhetorical question
(Dodd [1935] 1958:158; Luz 2005:221). Verse 43 constitutes
a macarism or beatitude (Bock 1996:1179; Crossan 1983:59;
Hays 2012:50; Jacobson [1982] 1994:101, n. 9; Kirk 1998:234;
Luz 2005:221; Nolland 2005:998; Scott 1989:211). Verse 44 is
an amen saying that functions both to buttress the beatitude
in the previous verse, and to conclude the train of thought
(Marshall 1978:541; cf. Kirk 1998:234; Scott 1989:211). In
obvious contradiction to Q 12:42–44, verses 45 and 46 harbour
no literary small forms whatsoever. The lack of small form
indicators in Q 12:45–46 is certainly suggestive of redactional
invention. What is more, this shortage strongly suggests that
Q 12:45–46 was added to Q 12:42–44, as opposed to the other
way around.
Literary emphasis
That the pericope should be dissected between verses 44 and
45 is further suggested by the fact that verse 44 features no less
than two literary emphases, namely the exclamation ‘amen’
(ἀμὴν)2 and the phrase ‘I tell you’ (λέγω ὑμῖν). The combination
of these two exclamations strongly suggests that verse 44
was the original ending of Q 12:42–44 (cf. Allison 2004:440).
The phrase ‘I tell you’ is particularly telling, since it is often
used in Q to conclude a pericope.3 Although intended more
as a synchronic than a diachronic observation, Fleddermann
(2005:636) agrees that the latter phrase ‘brings the first half of
the parable to a close.’ If Q 12:42–44 originally ended at verse
44, it is justified to regard Q 12:45–46 as a secondary addition.
Narraive mode
If emphatic exclamations betray verse 44 as the original
conclusion of Q 12:42–44, a shift in narrative mode reveals
a new beginning at verse 45 (cf. Allison 2004:441). Whereas
verses 42–44 are narrated by an omniscient, third-person
narrator, verse 45 introduces the protagonist’s internal
dialogue through first-person narration (Scott 1989:211). The
phrase ‘says in his heart’ (εἴπῃ ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ) represents
a familiar Semitic idiom that qualifies whatever follows as
2.Luke has ‘truly’ (ἀληθῶς) (Bock 1996:1180; Fleddermann 2005:627–628; Marshall
1978:541; Nolland 2005:998).
3.Cf. Q 7:28 as the conclusion of Q 7:24–28; Q 10:12 as the ending of Q 12:10–12;
Q 10:24 as the conclusion of Q 10:21–24; Q 11:51 as the ending of Q 11:49–51;
Q 12:59 as the conclusion of Q 12:58–59; Q 13:35 as the consummaion of Q
13:34–35; Q 15:7 as the applicaion of Q 15:4–5, 7; (Q 15:10 as the applicaion
of Q 15:8–10;) Q 17:34–35 as the conclusion of Q 17:26–27, 30, 34–35. On a few
occasions, the same phrase is also used to introduce a pericope (cf. Q 11:9; 12:22).
Finally, the phrase ‘I tell you’ is also someimes used in the middle of a pericope, but
in those cases it features to butress the preceding claim (cf. Q 7:26; 12:27). Yet, in
not one of these later cases does the subsequent content develop in an opposite or
alternaive direcion, which is indeed what happens with Q 12:45–46.
The re-identification of characters in verses 45–46 is also
fairly incriminating. The opening question introduces the
main characters as a ‘master’ (κύριος) and an appointed
‘slave’ (δοῦλος). In order to link the subsequent logion
with the preceding question, these characters are once
again identified specifically as ‘that slave’ (ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος)
and ‘his master’ (ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ) in verse 43 (Fleddermann
2005:636). Such linkage is necessary to indicate continuation
of the narrative and argument, although it might also be
an indication of redactional development at an earlier
stage (cf. Zeller [1982] 1994:122). With the association
between verses 42 and 43 established, and the characters
appropriately identified, the author is free to reference both
main characters in verse 44 through a verb suffix (καταστήσει)
and two personal pronouns (αὐτοῦ & αὐτόν) (Fleddermann
2005:636). There is no longer any need to identify the
characters specifically as ‘master’ (κύριος) or ‘slave’ (δοῦλος).
One would therefore expect the author to continue using
only verb suffixes and personal pronouns when referencing
these characters in the rest of the parable. Yet, verse 45 reidentifies the servile character unnecessarily as ‘that slave’
(ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος), and verse 46 re-identifies the slaveholder
unnecessarily as ‘the master of that slave’ (ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου
ἐκείνου) (cf. Fleddermann 2005:637). These re-identifications
seem like a deliberate, albeit artificial, literary attempt to
connect these characters with the ones in verses 42–44, and
to prevent confusion between the two individual characters
themselves. Particularly noticeable is the repeated use of the
demonstrative pronoun (ἐκεῖνος) and the wordiness of the
phrase ‘the master of that slave’ (ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου)
(cf. Taylor 1989:140). Besides illuminating the seam between
verses 44 and 45, these features of Q 12:45–46 betray an
obsession with literary exactitude and lucidity. Such fixation
strongly suggests that a redactor was responsible for these
two verses.
On one condiion
Verse 45 begins with both the contrastive conjunction
‘but’ (δὲ) and the conditional conjunction ‘if’ (ἐὰν), thereby
introducing Q 12:45–46 with a contrastive conditional clause
(cf. Fleddermann 2005:628, 633, 635). Semantically, this
beginning to verse 45 serves to indicate that the appointed
slave also has a second option, which is in some way
opposite to the first one (Bock 1996:1180–1181; cf. Crossan
1974:22). It is strange, however, that the preceding verses
do not also feature a conditional sentence, introduced by ‘if’
(ἐὰν). Whenever a narrative or argument features a choice
with two options, each with its own consequences, it is
customary to present the first option as ‘if ... then’, and the
second option as ‘but if ... then’. The lack of a conditional
clause in the first half of the parable therefore suggests that
the author of Q 12:42–44 did not wish to introduce a choice
htp://www.hts.org.za 474 doi:10.4102/hts.v71i1.2910
Page 3 of 5
with two options at all, even though the existence of such
a choice is implied (cf., however, Luz 2005:222; Marshall
1978:540). The author of verses 42–44 wanted to focus solely
on a singular positive action with its consequences, and had
no intention of explicitly mentioning or describing a second
option or its consequences. It is therefore safe to assume that
the material introduced by ‘but if’ (ἐὰν δὲ), meaning verses
45–46, comprise a secondary expansion of the parable.
The doubling of narraive elements
Not only the existence of a redactional seam between Q
12:44 and Q 12:45, but also the probability that Q 12:45–46
represents redactional elaboration, are further suggested
by the fact that verses 45–46 double the elements of verses
42–44. The singular action in verse 42 of feeding the slaves is
paralleled by the two actions in verse 45 of keeping improper
company and beating fellow slaves. Similarly, the single
reward in verse 44 of being appointed over everything is
mirrored by the two punishments in verse 46 of being ‘cut
in two’ (διχοτομέω) and receiving an inheritance with the
faithless. The text-critical principle according to which the
shorter reading is more likely to be original (lectio brevior)
could here be applied to the redaction of Q 12:42–46 (cf.
Brotzman 1994:128).
The redactional acts of multiplying the desired conduct
of verse 42 into two separate accusations in verse 45, and
doubling the single reward into two separate forms of
punishment, were likely intended to shift the parable’s
emphasis, and reallocate its focus, to the second half (cf.
Blomberg 1990:192; Hunter 1971:12; Taylor 1989:146, 149,
150; see Donahue 1988:98–99). In the process, the spotlight
was moved away from encouragement and motivation
towards accusation and condemnation (cf. Blomberg
1990:191; Kloppenborg4 2000:141). This tactic was highly
effective, convincing not only ancient authors (like
Matthew), but also modern scholars (like Jacobson 1992:197;
Taylor 1989:146, 149, 150) that the parable’s emphasis and
meaning are both to be found in the parable’s second half
(cf. Allison 2004:441; Blomberg 1990:192; Hunter 1971:12; see
Donahue 1988:98–99).
An interpolaion
The reference in verse 43 to the master’s return with the
phrase ‘upon coming’ (ἐλθὼν) is both syntactically awkward
and semantically unnecessary in the context of the statement
as a whole (cf. Kloppenborg 1995:293–294). It is possible, if
not likely, that the main redactor was responsible for adding
the word ‘upon coming’ (ἐλθὼν) into verse 43 in order to link
the master’s return in the first ending with the master’s return
in the second ending. It might be relevant to the present
discussion that Luke added the exact same lexis in verse 45
(Bock 1996:1182; Fleddermann 2005:628; Marshall 1978:542;
4.For a short period of ime, including the year 2000, John S. Kloppenborg’s surname
features as ‘Kloppenborg Verbin’ in his publicaions. In earlier and later publicaions,
his surname only features as ‘Kloppenborg’. To avoid confusion, I will feature his
surname throughout this aricle as ‘Kloppenborg’, but add the ‘Verbin’ between
brackets where applicable in the bibliography at the end.
Original Research
Nolland 2005:998). That ἐλθὼν is a secondary intrusion into
verse 43 is not a given, though, since the presence of this
word is explicable (albeit somewhat redundant) on the literal
level of the narrative (cf. Dodd [1935] 1958:159). Even so,
the presence of ἐλθὼν in verse 43 does seem to advance the
agenda of the main redactor. If ἐλθὼν were indeed introduced
into Q 12:42–44 by the same hand that authored Q 12:45–46,
it would provide strong evidence that the first half of the
parable preceded the second half in the literary evolution of
this pericope.
Technical style
A related indication of the disunity between Q 12:42–44
and Q 12:45–46 is the technical style of each. Whereas Q 12:
42–44 is syntactically succinct and compressed, Q 12:45–46
is syntactically elaborate and convoluted (see Fleddermann
2005:635–636). The former is reminiscent of not only Semitic
style and syntax, but also the general style of the historical
Jesus. Conversely, the latter is characteristic of not only
Greek style and syntax, but also scribal activity in general.
Like the aforementioned doubling of narrative elements,
the syntactical disparity between the two halves of the
parable tenders for a redactional application of the textcritical principle of lectio brevior. To be clear, the foregoing
argumentation is not a claim that the first half of the parable
reaches back to the historical Jesus, but rather that the first
half of the parable is much more likely to form part of Q’s
inherited tradition than the second half. On the one hand, the
authenticity of Q 12:42–44 is neither advocated nor denied.
On the other hand, it is being argued that Q 12:45–46 is highly
unlikely to be authentic.
Parallelism
In its final form, the formal arrangement of Q 12:45–46 is
highly suggestive of redactional intent. Verse 45 forms an
antithetic parallelism with verse 43 by describing the opposite
behaviour, and verse 46 forms an antithetic parallelism with
verse 44 by spelling out the opposite consequences (Bock
1996:1181; Crossan 1974:22; 1983:59–60; Scott 1989:211; cf.
Allison 2004:439; Luz 2005:221; see Taylor 1989:141–144).
Such literary arrangement seems like a deliberate attempt to
unify a pericope that is intrinsically multipart.
Tone
A change in tone is noticeable when the two halves of the
parable are compared. We already saw that Fleddermann
(2005:628, 633, 635) divides the parable into a ‘positive’ and a
‘negative’ half. Q 12:42–44 is wholly and highly positive, not
only in its ultimate conclusion of a significant reward, but also
in its descriptions of the characters and their conduct. The
appointed slave is described as ‘wise’, ‘loyal’ and ‘blessed’.
His main task to feed fellow slaves on time is also decidedly
positive. The latter would have been particularly true in the
estimation of ancient audiences from lower socio-economic
strata. By contrast, the tone of Q 12:45–46 is intrinsically
negative. The slave is imagined as keeping questionable
htp://www.hts.org.za 475 doi:10.4102/hts.v71i1.2910
Page 4 of 5
company and resorting to physical violence against his
fellow slaves. His double punishment is extremely severe. To
be sure, the tone of Q 12:45–46 is more than just ‘negative’;
it is manifestly threatening. On the level of interpretation,
verse 45 was probably intended as an accusation, while
verse 46 was probably intended as a threat. This explains
why some scholars have described the whole parable as
threatening in tone (see e.g. Kloppenborg 1987:148–154). It
would seem, though, that this description applies only to the
second half of the parable. The accusation of verse 45 reveals
the conditions under which the threat of verse 46 would be
applicable. The rest of the parable is wholly and intrinsically
unthreatening.
An imperfect analogy
Few scholars would disagree that Q 12:45–46 references the
final judgement. Despite the apparentness of the parable’s
apocalyptic application, its artificial nature protrudes
beneath the surface. In the process of adding verses 45–46
to the parable, the redactor created an imperfect analogy for
apocalyptic judgement, especially if compared to the rest
of Q. Regarding both reward and punishment, life carries
on as normal for everyone except the appointed slave. This
eventuality indicates that the parable does not imagine a
dramatic cessation of the space-time continuum. In both
the cases of reward and punishment, the consequences take
place within the narrative world of the story. The narrative
world is not discontinued or drastically changed. This
feature differs entirely from the descriptions of apocalyptic
cessation and finality in other Q texts, like Q 3:7 and Q
17:27. The parable does not seem to imagine a ‘next world’,
whether this-worldly or other-worldly, but rather a change
occurring within this world for the Jewish leaders only
(cf. Funk 2006:46, 71). Such a description of the apocalyptic
end is fundamentally at odds with the rest of Q.
Original Research
342; Scott 1989:210; see Bock 1996:1171). Finally, a number of
scholars have noticed the verbal and conceptual similarities
between the Son of Man saying in Q 12:40 and the second
ending of the parable in Q 12:46 (e.g. Kloppenborg 1987:150;
1995:293; Luz 2005:223).5 Either the wording of verse 40
was modified to match the parable’s second ending, or the
wording of verse 46 was modified to fit the content of the Son
of Man logion. A third possibility is that both verses were
constructed at the same time to correspond to each other.
Whatever the case, the similarity in wording between these
two verses is suggestive of editorial activity and organisation
(cf. Kloppenborg 1995:293).
Findings
A rather strong case has been made for the existence of a
redactional seam between verses 44 and 45 of the parable in
Q 12:42–46. In the process, an equally strong case has been
made for viewing the second half of this parable (Q 12:45–46)
as a redactional addition to its first half (Q 12:42–44). The
parable’s second half is extremely unlikely to be authentic,
since it cannot possibly stand on its own and remain
comprehensible, amongst other reasons. The authenticity
of the parable’s first half is an open question, depending to
a large extent on how one interprets this earlier version of
the parable. It remains now to determine the implications of
these findings for our understanding of Q’s redaction.
Acknowledgements
Compeing interests
The author declares that he has no financial or personal
relationships which may have inappropriately influenced
him in writing this article.
References
Allison, D.C., 2000, The intertextual Jesus: Scripture in Q, Trinity, Harrisburg.
Addiional clues of elaboraion
Allison, D.C. (ed.), 2004, Mathew: A shorter commentary, T&T Clark, London/New
York, NY.
Five additional clues point to the secondary nature of verses
45–46. The first is the general tendency of textual redactors
in the early church to affix the most extensive and significant
expansions to the end of Jesus’ parables, generally making
only smaller and lesser alterations to the beginning and
middle of these parables (Jeremias [1958] 1963:103; 1966:81;
cf. Crossan 1979:31; Funk 2006:30). The second is the fact that
verses 42–44 are semantically independent, meaning that
they could stand alone without any loss of meaning, whereas
verses 45–46 are dependent upon the preceding material for
the generation of its meaning. The third is the intertextual
parallel with the story of Joseph in Genesis 39 (see Allison
2000:87–92; Luz 2005:223–224), which coheres perfectly with
verses 42–44, but is diametrically contradicted by verses
45–46, since Joseph was neither guilty of the misdeeds
described in verse 45, nor punished in any way after
becoming the Pharaoh’s personal slave. The fourth is the
near-perfect fit of the parable to the situation of the early
church, which, upon closer inspection, relates solely to verses
45–46 (e.g. Marshall 1978:534; cf. Funk & Hoover 1993:253,
Blomberg, C.L., 1990, Interpreing the Parables, Apollos, Leicester.
Bock, D.L., 1996, Luke, vol. 2, 9:51–24:53, Baker, Grand Rapids, MI. (Baker Exegeical
Commentary on the New Testament).
Brotzman, E.R., 1994, Old Testament textual criicism: A pracical introducion, Baker
Books, Grand Rapids, MI.
Crossan, J.D., 1974, ‘The Servant Parables of Jesus’, Semeia 1, 17–62.
Crossan, J.D., 1979, ‘Paradox gives rise to metaphor: Paul Ricoeur’s hermeneuics and
the parables of Jesus’, Biblical Research 24, 20–37.
Crossan, J.D., 1983, In Fragments: The aphorisms of Jesus, Harper & Row, San
Francisco, CA.
Dodd, C.H., [1935] 1958, The parables of the Kingdom, rev. edn., James Nisbet &
Company, Welwyn.
Donahue, J.R., 1988, The Gospel in parable, Fortress, Philadelphia, PA.
Etchells, R., 1998, A Reading of the parables of Jesus, Darton, Longman & Todd,
London.
Fleddermann, H.T., 2005, Q: A reconstrucion and commentary, Peeters, Leuven.
(Biblical Tools and Studies 1).
Funk, R.W., 1974, ‘Structure in the narraive parables of Jesus’, Semeia 2, 51–73.
Funk, R.W., 2006, Funk on parables: Collected essays, ed. B.B. Scot, Polebridge, Santa
Rosa, CA.
5.Verse 40: ‘the Son of Man comes at an hour you do not expect’ (ᾗ οὐ δοκεῖτε ὥρᾳ ὁ
υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἔρχεται); verse 46: ‘the master of that slave will come on a day
he does not expect and at an hour he does not know’ (ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου
ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει).
htp://www.hts.org.za 476 doi:10.4102/hts.v71i1.2910
Page 5 of 5
Funk, R.W. & Hoover, R.W. (eds.), 1993, The ive Gospels: The search for the authenic
words of Jesus, (New Translaion and Commentary by Robert W. Funk, Roy W.
Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar), Polebridge, New York, NY/Don Mills, Ontario
Hays, C.M., 2012, ‘Slaughtering stewards and incarceraing debtors: Coercing charity
in Luke 12:35–13:9’, Neotestamenica 46(1), 41–60.
Hunter, A.M., 1971, The parables then and now, SCM, London.
Jacobson, A.D., 1992, The irst Gospel: An introducion to Q, Polebridge, Sonoma, CA.
Jacobson, A.D., [1982] 1994, ‘The Literary Unity of Q’, in J.S. Kloppenborg (ed.),
The shape of Q: Signal essays on the Sayings Gospel, pp. 98–115, Fortress,
Minneapolis, MN.
Jeremias, J., [1958] 1963, The parables of Jesus, rev. edn., SCM, London.
Jeremias, J., 1966, Rediscovering the parables, SCM, London.
Kirk, A., 1998, The Composiion of the sayings source: Genre, synchrony, and wisdom
redacion in Q, Brill, Leiden. (Novum Testamentum Supplements, XCI).
Original Research
Luz, U., 2005, Mathew 21–28: A commentary, transl. J.E. Crouch, Fortress,
Minneapolis, MN. (Hermeneia).
Marshall, I.H., 1978, The Gospel of Luke: A commentary on the Greek text, Paternoster,
Exeter. (New Internaional Greek Testament Commentary).
Nolland, J., 2005, The Gospel of Mathew: A commentary on the Greek text,
William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. (New Internaional Greek Testament
Commentary).
Robinson, J.M., Hofmann, P. & Kloppenborg J.S. (eds.), 2000, The criical ediion of Q,
Fortress, Minneapolis, MN. (Hermeneia).
Robinson, J.M., Hofmann, P. & Kloppenborg, J.S. (eds.), 2002, The Sayings Gospel Q in
Greek and English with parallels from the Gospels of Mark and Thomas, Fortress,
Minneapolis, MN. (Contribuions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology, 30).
Scot, B.B., 1989, Hear then the Parable: A commentary on the parables of Jesus,
Fortress, Minneapolis, MN.
Kloppenborg, J.S., 1987, The formaion of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom
collecions, Fortress, Philadelphia, PA. (Studies in Aniquity and Chrisianity).
Taylor, A.B., 1989, ‘The master-servant type scene in the parables of Jesus’, PhD
dissertaion, Dept. of Theology, Fordham University, New York, NY.
Kloppenborg, J.S., 1995, ‘Jesus and the parables of Jesus in Q’, in R.A. Piper (ed.),
The Gospel behind the Gospels: Current studies on Q, pp. 275–319, Brill, Leiden,
New York/Köln. (Novum Testamentum Supplements LXXV).
Valantasis, R., 2005, The new Q: A fresh translaion with commentary, T&T Clark, New
York/London.
Kloppenborg (Verbin), J.S., 2000, Excavaing Q: The history and seing of the Sayings
Gospel, Fortress, Minneapolis, MN.
Zeller, D., [1982] 1994, ‘Redacional processes and changing seings in the Q-Material’,
in J.S. Kloppenborg (ed.), The shape of Q: Signal essays on the Sayings Gospel,
pp. 116–130, Fortress, Minneapolis, MN.
htp://www.hts.org.za 477 doi:10.4102/hts.v71i1.2910