On the other hand, one could argue that Luke has moved Q 12:33–34 to its present position in Luke, modified Q 12:33, and inserted a complex of sayings and parables (Parable of the Rich Fool, etc.—Luke 12:13–21) in 12:33’s former position in order to frame the Q Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope with Lukan ethical interests regarding the hoarding of possessions and almsgiving.10 The addition of Luke 12:32 (“Do not be afraid, little flock, for it is your Father’s good pleasure to give you the kingdom”) creates a summary that frames the speech (“do not be anxious” [12:22]/”fear not” [12:32]), and exposes the lack of a good original connection between Q 12:31 and Q 12:33. If Luke 12:33–34’s position is original, however, then framing the Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope with Lukan concerns would have been accomplished merely by redacting Q 12:33 and inserting 12:13–20 into its present position, with a Lukan moral, 12:21, created from Q 12:33’s original vocabulary. In short, redactional rationales in either direction are mitigated by simpler arguments based on the sayings being located in their present positions. Having thus disposed of the issue of redactional rationales, the following arguments seem most cogent to me:
1. Obvious catchword connections exist with Q 12:2–12/12:22–2411 and Q 12:33/12:39,12 but not with either Q 12:2–12/12:33–34 or Q 12:22–31/12:39–40.
2. Conceptual and metaphorical connections exist between Q 12:4–7, 11–12 (Not Fearing the Body’s Death, Hearings before the Synagogues) and 12:22–24: God’s providence in a crisis or concerning daily needs and God’s care for birds as an a minore ad maius (“from the lesser to the greater”) argument for God’s concern for people.13
3. The assertion of God’s providence in Q 12:11–12 provides a strong rationale for the transitional διὰ τοῦτο (“for this reason”) in Q 12:22, which allows for the rhetorical development of the argumentation in Q 12:22–31 without explicit mention of God’s providence until Q 12:24. The location of Q 12:33–34 preceding 12:22–31 would interrupt this (and the μεριμνάω [“be anxious”] catchword) connection.14 Luke’s insertion of 12:13–21 also interrupts this development of thought in favor of Luke’s thematic concern for dealing with wealth. The issue of earthly/heavenly concerns is shared by Q 12:22–31, but Q 12:22 and its διὰ τοῦτο (“for this reason”) does not logically follow Luke 12:21.
4. There is a thematic connection between Q 12:31 and 12:33 in that the two imperatives call for seeking divine or heavenly things over earthly things. However, the redactional Luke 12:32 creates a better summary to 12:22–31 as a whole, and in the process obscures this thematic connection between Q 12:33 and 12:31 that may have been part of the original reason for placing the two pericopae together in Q. Any such connections noted here or in (1) and (2) above would have been lost with Matthew’s relocation of Q 12:22–31, 33–34 in the Sermon on the Mount.
5. Consideration should also be given to the reminiscence theory, that Luke 12:21 recalls the original position of Q 12:33 (as found in Matthew), since Luke does appear to frame Q 12:22–31 with Luke 12:13–21 and Q 12:33–34.15 However, Luke 12:21 may now stand as an indication of Luke’s ethics-based intentionality in framing Q 12:22–31, not as a reminiscence of 12:33’s prior position in Q.
Q 12:332: Luke’s πωλήσατε . . . ἐλεημοσύνην or Matthew 6:19
The Lukan introduction to Q 12:33 reflects Lukan thematic interests concerning the stewardship of one’s possessions and the giving of alms to the poor.16 While the specific terminology is not especially Lukan (except ὑπάρχω),17 the framing of Luke 12:22–31 with 12:13–21 and 12:32, 33–34 suggests that Luke has a different audience in mind—one that actually has appreciable disposable wealth—than that which is reflected in Q. The addition of Luke 12:33a reflects this different audience. The fact that Luke uses different words elsewhere in reference to almsgiving does not provide an effective counter-argument to the obvious Lukan interest in both the gospel and Acts. As to the source for Luke 12:33a, the initial imperative is probably taken from Mark 10:21, with minor alterations (cf. Luke 18:22).
The Matthean prohibition of 6:19 is another issue. It is an almost exact mirror of the positive admonition in Matt 6:20. Such close verbal similarity in an antithetical parallelism is rare in the gospels, and may have partially led to Luke’s replacement with 12:33a.18 However, there is antithetical parallelism in Matthew’s immediate context, both in Matt 6:2–4, 6:5–6, and 6:16–18, and in 6:31–33 (Q 12:29–31). The question is whether Matthew retained this parallelism from Q and placed it with 6:22–24 in its present location as a transition from 6:1–18 (Matthew’s “Cult Didache”) to 6:25–34 (Q’s Free from Anxiety like Ravens and Lilies pericope) or created the parallelism for this very purpose when relocating the saying to the Sermon on the Mount.
Matthew, Luke, and Thomas all contain introductions to this saying, though the introductions differ from each other both in form and content (Matthew a prohibition, Luke an exhortation, and Thomas the Parable of the Pearl of Great Price). The fact that they all have introductions can be taken as an argument for there having been one in Q as well. The Epistle of James, which reflects knowledge of a Q-like version of this saying (Jas 5:2–3), is interested in the eventual destruction of earthly treasures and those who hoard them, just as Matt 6:19 warns against storing up earthly treasures. Luke 12:21 contrasts the storing of earthly riches with being rich toward God. Both texts may therefore reflect an original contrast in Q. The antithetical parallelism in Q 12:33 (Matt 6:19–20) may have originally followed the passage of Q 12:29–31. The interpretation of the two passages is very different, but the general theme of dealing with possessions and the contrast of earthly concerns as opposed to the seeking of the Reign of God may have been reasons for the original grouping of 12:22–31 and 12:33–34 in Q. John Dominic Crossan even suggests that the negative admonition of Matt 6:19 is more original than the positive one in 6:20, which he considers to be a secondary elaboration.19
On the other hand, a positive admonition that contains an implied contrast to present, earthly concerns invites expansion by means of a saying dealing with earthly goods. As will be shown later, John modifies the Thomasine version of this saying by using elements of the saying to create a prohibition and an exhortation (John 6:27; cf. GTh 76:3).20 Thomas attaches this saying to a parable about the selling of all one’s merchandise to buy a single pearl. Matthew and Luke may have “taken the bait” as well and prefaced the saying with their own introductions, each introduction dealing with earthly possessions. So the fact that Matthew and Luke both have introductions that deal with possessing earthly goods is not surprising, and the usual argument that since both Matthew and Luke have something there, so Q probably had something as well, is not relevant here. The question remains whether Q received or created a negative admonition that Luke replaced, or whether Matthew and Luke created introductions independently.
The use of μή (“Do not”) in Matt 6:19 is the primary link between Matt 6:1–18 and 6:20–34, and μή (with imperatives) appears to be the primary catchword for the entire sixth chapter of Matthew, a compilation of antitheses and contrasts in attitude and piety.21 While continuing in the antithesis style of the “Cult Didache,” Matt 6:19–21 begins a new section that focuses on greed, earthly possessions, and ultimate loyalties. So Matt 6:19 may have been created