Which Q? What Kind of Book?

This paper, due to the constraints of time, could do little more than introduce my Q+/Papias Solution to the Synoptic Problem, and briefly propose alternative criteria for reconstructing the lost Gospel. I provided one example how the application of these criteria allows for the inclusion of the story of Jesus forgiving a sinful woman. This result alone is important for the study of the historical Jesus, feminist interpretations of the New Testament, and the exegesis of the Gospel of Luke. I also provided a ground-breaking example of the value of my textual reconstruction for solving difficult problems in the history of New Testament interpretation. The case I offered was the origin of the title Son of Man. These two examples merely scratch the surface. Let me conclude with a word of caution. Several recent publications have treated reconstructions of Q based on the Two-Document Hypothesis as definitive and final. The very title of The Critical Edition of Q gives the impression that now at last we have the last word on the reconstruction of the lost Gospel. Furthermore, I am aware of two new Gospel synopses that include that reconstruction of Q in a column for comparison with columns of the Gospels of Mark, Matthew, and Luke. This development, while well-intended, is a disservice to our understanding of the Gospels insofar as it objectifies a text that must forever remain elusive. Although I am convinced that my reconstruction closer resembles the text of the lost Gospel, I am under no illusion that I have reconstructed the original completely or free of errors. Surely we are nowhere done with the quest for the origins of the Gospel tradition; I can only hope that my efforts for the last three decades contribute positively to our understanding.