Most recent studies of Q are built on the assumption that Q is not much more extensive than the double tradition, a questionable assumption given that Mark is much more extensive than the components of Mark that are found in both Matthew and Luke and that Matthew’s selective rather than consecutive approach to Q may have caused him to leave out many verses of Q. This article considers three similitudes unique to Luke that begin with the phrase τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν (Lk. 11.5-8; 14.28-33; 17.7-10) as well as one that is paralleled in Matthew but has been omitted from the Critical Edition (Lk. 14.5 par. Mt. 12.11-12) and argues that all four of these passages are from Q. The criteria of Vassiliadis and Kloppenborg for finding Q passages in Lukan Sondergut are used, with particular emphasis on Kloppenborg’s ‘stylistic coherence’.
AsgeirssonJon MaRobinsonJames M.1992 ‘The International Q Project: Work Sessions 12–14 July, 22 November 1991’, JBL111: 500-508.
2.
BaileyKenneth E.1980Through Peasant Eyes: More Lucan Parables, their Culture and Style (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
3.
BovonFrançois2013Luke 2: A Commentary on the Gospel of Luke 9:51–19:27 (trans. DeerDonald S.; Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press).
4.
BroadheadEdwin K.2001 ‘The Extent of the Sayings Tradition (Q)’, in LindemannAndreas (ed.), The Sayings Source Q and the Historical Jesus (Leuven: Peeters): 719-28.
5.
BurkettDelbert2009Rethinking the Gospel Sources. II. The Unity and Plurality of Q (Early Christianity and its Literature; Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature).
6.
CadburyHenry J.1920The Style and Literary Method of Luke (HTS, 6; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).
7.
CatchpoleDavid R.1993The Quest for Q (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
8.
ConleyThomas M.1984 ‘The Enthymeme in Perspective’, Quarterly Journal of Speech70: 168-87.
9.
CrossanJohn Dominic1974 ‘The Servant Parables of Jesus’, in FunkR.W. (ed.), A Structuralist Approach to the Parables (Semeia, 1; Missoula, MT: Society of Biblical Literature): 17-62.
10.
DupontJacques1984 ‘Le maître et son serviteur (Luc 17, 7–10)’, ETL60: 233-51.
11.
EastonBurton Scott1926The Gospel According to St. Luke (Edinburgh: T&T Clark).
12.
FitzmyerJoseph A.1985The Gospel According to Luke X–XXIV: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB, 28A; Garden City, NY: Doubleday).
13.
FleddermannHarry T.2005aQ: A Reconstruction and Commentary (Leuven: Peeters).
14.
FleddermannHarry T.2005b ‘Three Friends at Midnight (Luke 11,5–8)’, in BieringerR.Van BelleG.VerheydenJ. (eds.), Luke and his Readers: Festschrift A. Denaux (BETL, 182; Leuven: Leuven University Press): 265-82.
15.
FosterPaulGregoryAndrewKloppenborgJohn S.VerheydenJ. (eds.) 2011New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (BETL, 239; Leuven: Peeters).
16.
GreenJoel B.1997The Gospel of Luke (NICNT; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
17.
JeremiasJoachim1980Die Sprache des Lukasevangeliums: Redaktion und Tradition im Nicht-Markusstoff des dritten Evangeliums (KEK Sonderband; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht).
18.
KirkAlan1998The Composition of the Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom Redaction in Q (NovTSup, 91; Leiden: Brill).
19.
KloppenborgJohn S.1987The Formation of Q: Trajectories in Ancient Wisdom Collections (SAC; Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
20.
Kloppenborg VerbinJohn S.2000Excavating Q: The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press).
21.
KnoxWilfred L.1957The Sources of the Synoptic Gospels (ed. ChadwickH.; 2 vols.; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
22.
KoesterHelmut1990Ancient Christian Gospels: Their History and Development (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press).
23.
KoesterHelmut1996 ‘The Gospel of Thomas’, in RobinsonJ.M. (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Library in English (trans. LambdinT.O.; 4th rev. edn; Leiden: Brill): 124-38.
24.
MacDonaldDennis R.2012Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias’s Exposition of Logia about the Lord (SBLECL, 8; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature).
25.
MansonT.W.1949The Sayings of Jesus (London: SCM Press).
26.
MarshallI. Howard1978The Gospel of Luke: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC; Exeter: Paternoster Press).
27.
MinearPaul S.1974 ‘A Note on Luke 17.7–10’, JBL93: 82-87.
RobinsonJames M.HoffmannPaulKloppenborgJohn S. (eds.) 2000The Critical Edition of Q: Synopsis Including the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, Mark and Thomas with English, German, and French Translations of Q and Thomas (Hermeneia; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press).
30.
SchmidJosef1930Matthäus und Lukas: Eine Untersuchung des Verhältnisses ihrer Evangelien (BS, 23; Freiburg: Herder & Herder).
31.
SchürmannHeinz1968Traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu den synoptischen Evangelien (Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag).
32.
TannehillRobert C.1991The Narrative Unity of Luke–Acts: A Literary Interpretation. I. The Gospel According to Luke (Philadelphia: Fortress Press).
33.
VassiliadisPetros1999ΛΟΓΟΙ ΙΗΣΟΥ: Studies in Q (Atlanta: Scholars Press).
34.
WeiserAlfons1971Die Knechtsgleichnisse der synoptischen Evangelien (Munich: Kösel).
