The saying in Q 22:28–30 has been something of exegetical stepchild in recent Q-research. The saying has attracted more than its fair share of attention in studies of the historical Jesus.1 Yet in studies of Q it has perhaps been more notable for the lack of attention it has received. The saying is regularly included in lists specifying what is taken as comprising the contents of Q ; yet discussion of it is usually brief and is not often integrated into broader analyses of the ideas or distinctive features of Q.2 In his magisterial study of Q , David Catchpole gave only three passing references to the saying,3 and this has been typical of some of the (by now classic) full-length recent studies of Q (e.g. Lührmann, Hoffmann, Kloppenborg).4 Some
1 Cf., for example, E.P. Sanders, Jesus and Judaism (London, 1985) 98–104; R.A.
Horsley, Jesus and the Spiral of Violence (Minneapolis, 1987) 199–208, to name but
two. A detailed discussion of the tradition history of the saying is provided in the
very full essay of J. Dupont, “Le logion des douze trônes (Mt 19,28; Lc 22,28–30)”,
Biblica 45 (1964) 355–392, repr. in Dupont, Études sur les évangiles synoptiques (BETL
70B; Leuven, 1983) 706–743 (refs. to the latter), though without any discussion of
the place of the saying in Q: Dupont considers only the contexts of Matthew, Luke
2 There have been one or two exceptions. The saying was the basis of the rela-
tively early essay of E. Bammel, “Das Ende von Q”, Verborum Veritas: Festschrift für
Gustav Stählin zum 70. Geburtstag (ed. O. Böcher & K. Haacker; Wuppertal, 1970),
pp. 39–50, which sought to use the saying as the basis for his theory that Q should
be seen as a “testimony”. However, in this he has found few supporters. His the-
ory depended heavily on ascribing the “testamentary” language of Luke 22:29 to
Q , even though there is no direct parallel to this in Matthew (on this, see below);
also many of the characteristics of a “testament” are lacking in Q. For a critique,
see J.S. Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q (Philadelphia, 1987) 29–30; A. Kirk, The
Composition of the Sayings Source. Genre, Synchrony and Wisdom Redaction in Q (NovTSup
91; Leiden, 1998) 18, with further references.
In more recent times, there is a valuable essay on the saying by H. Fleddermann,
“The End of Q”, 1990 SBL Seminar Papers (Atlanta, 1990) 1–10; and one impor-
tant aspect of the saying is analysed in detail by P. Hoffmann, “Herrscher in oder
Richter über Israel? Mt 19,28/Lk 22,28–30 in der synoptichen Überlieferung”, in
Ja und Nein. Christliche Theologie im Angesicht Israels FS W. Schrage (ed. K. Wengst &
G. Saβ; Neukirchen-Vluyn, 1998) 253–264.
3 D.R. Catchpole, The Quest for Q (Edinburgh, 1993) 45, 164, 290.
4 If there is “blame” to be apportioned, then I would plead equally “guilty”,
having recently burdened others with a book on Q of nearly 500 pages and with