Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Saying Gospel. .

Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel. By John S. Kloppenborg Verbin. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2000. xii and 546 pages. Paper. $32.00.

The author says he intended to write an introduction to Q. That is a remarkable understatement. For those of us who are not Q experts, this work reads more like an encyclopedic reference than an introduction. All you ever wanted to know about Q can be found in this remarkable tome. One reason for the extensive nature of the work is that Kloppenborg Verbin is the doyen of Q scholars. Another is the remarkable quality of those who read the manuscript and gave suggestions (including, of course, members of the International Q Project). In that sense Excavating Q reads as a compendium of the best thinking available on the document Q.

Q was first extracted from Matthew and Luke as a source document. The underlying assumption of Excavating Q changes that radically. Q is not a document. It is a Gospel (pp. 4, 398-408). Nevertheless, there is no Sayings Gospel Q unless Q does indeed exist. Kloppenborg Verbin leaves no stone unturned. The first section of the book (pp. 11-270) reviews the history of Q research and examines minutely the case for Q over against other hypotheses, especially that of Griesbach (Matthew is first, so no Q is necessary). The author shows, as do most others, that Q must have originated in Galilee. References to northern towns and the sparsity of references to Judean institutions would be chief indicators. There must have been followers of Jesus who collected Q sayings, listened to this form of the Gospel, and eventually redacted it. Unlike some Q scholars, Kloppenborg Verbin is unwilling to posit a Q community or church, so he speaks of these followers as the Q people (pp. 170-71).

The second section of the study deals with ideology and theology (pp. 271-444). If Q is a Gospel, then it must be treated as the Fourth Synoptic and included in our perception of biblical theology. Even if scholars reject Q as a Gospel, then it, and now the Gospel of Thomas, must be included in any investigation of the historical Jesus (p. 362). Kloppenborg Verbin is willing to discuss the impact of Q and the Gospel of Thomas on Jesus research but is unwilling to speak of the sayings as anything like ipsissima verba. Rather, he presupposes that Q is a Gospel and therefore went through the same redactional process as other Gospel materials (pp. 112-23). The identity of and the redactions that led to [Q.sup.2] and [Q.sup.3] have been much disputed. In short, Kloppenborg Verbin considers that judgment materials, including the Lot cycle, and the Deuteronomistic theology of history have been added to [Q.sup.1] (pp. 118-22).

The theological debates regarding Q, if a Gospel, have also been much debated. Kloppenberg Verbin believes Q stresses the coming of the reign of God more than Christology, but the coming of the Reign is connected to the person of Jesus (p. 396). Is Q primarily sapiental, prophetic, eschatological, or even apocalyptic? Kloppenberg Verbin sidesteps the issue by making form primary. Instructional literature, as Kloppenberg Verbin names it, can carry several motifs. In that sense it is possible to speak of the Cynic influence on Q. Jesus was not at all a Cynic, but the form of Cynic wisdom has parallels to Q materials. Finally, Q was redacted and assimilated because its social theology, the nature of the coming Reign, was too radical for developing Christianity.

It is difficult to critique a compendium. To be sure, Kloppenborg Verbin can be combative (p. 385), but he seldom takes an absolute position. There are at least two absolutes: Q did exist, and it is a Gospel. This reviewer agrees.