According to some, including a few Muslim apologists, the Q source does not mention the death of Jesus. While I do not accept the existence of the hypothetical sayings source “Q” (though I do believe it is a handy designation for the common material within the Synoptic Gospels), bracketing that for this post, and accepting the theory as valid, the following from a liberal New Testament scholar blows the argument out of the water:
Given the unlikelihood that the Q group could have been ignorant of Jesus’ death by crucifixion in Jerusalem, certain Q texts must be read with Jesus’ death in view, even though none of them explicitly refers to it (Q. 14.27, for instance). (Daniel A. Smith, The Post-Mortem Vindication of Jesus in the Sayings Gospel Q [Library of New Testament Studies 338; London: T&T Clark International, 2006], 1)
The Death of Jesus in Q
The fact that Q nowhere explicitly mentions Jesus’ death, much less includes anything related to the narrative passion traditions, raises the question of whether knowledge of Jesus’ death can be properly inferred from Q. Two different approaches have been attempted. The first takes seriously Q sayings which could imply knowledge of Jesus’ death on the part of their tradents. The second approach is to argue from Q’s polemical material, or its material about persecution, back to a knowledge of Jesus’ death. Both approaches may be strengthened if coupled with the a priori observation that it is highly unlikely that the framers of Q were unaware that Jesus had met a violent end. (p. 11)
The other way to handle the question of Q’s knowledge of the death of Jesus is to observe that Q contains rhetorical or polemical strategies which respond to Jesus’ death. A number of approaches have been taken by different scholars, but one arises from the deuteronomistic perspective on rejection and suffering that Q espouses. Q 7.31-35, 11.49-51, and 13.34-35 all deal with the theme of the rejection of Wisdom’s emissaries and, taken together, these texts suggest a relationship between the rejection of John and Jesus by ‘this generation’ (7.33-35) and the violent fate suffered by the prophets, for which ‘this generation’ is going to be held accountable (11.49-51; 13.34-35a). This alone suggests that Q is responding rhetorically not just to persecution in general, but also to Jesus’ death in particular, using the deuteronomistic model. Furthermore, the Jerusalem Lament has in view a relationship between those killed and stone in Jerusalem and Jesus himself. As will be seen below, some scholars take the Jerusalem Lament as an utterance of a supra-historical figure in 13.34-35a, at least λεγω υμιν in verse 35b would signify a shift to Jesus as speaker, so that his own disappearance (“I tell you, you will not see me . . .”) is connected with the murder of prophets.
This strategy becomes clearer when Q 7.31-35 is read in conjunction with 11.49-51. Wisdom is named in both passages. In the former saying, Jesus is rejected as demonic and Jesus as a glutton and a drunk; yet Wisdom has been vindicated in John and Jesus and those who like them are ‘her children’ (Q 7.35). As Christopher Tuckett puts it, ‘Jesus and John constitute part of the series of Wisdom’s messengers, though their specifically “prophetic” status is not spelt out here.’ In the latter saying, Wisdom sends the prophets. Thus both the prophets sent through the history of God’s relationship with his people (προφητας και σοφους, 11.49; Abel to Zechariah 11.50) and John and Jesus (7.33-34; Jesus as ‘Son of man’) are associated with Wisdom. Also to be included in this company are the prophets are sent one (τους προφητας και . . . τους απεσταλμενους) sent to Jerusalem and killed and stoned by them (Q 13.34). John and Jesus are therefore understood as standing in continuity with the prophets who suffer rejection. The association of Jerusalem and its ‘house’ with this violent rejection is also telling (Q. 11.51; 13.34-35a).
Both Q 7.31-35 and 11.49-51 also assign the rejection of these emissaries of Wisdom to ‘this generation’. The introduction to the parable of the children in the marketplace begins with the rhetorical question, ‘To what shall I compare this generation?’ (7.31). Similarly in Q 11.51 it is said that ‘this generation’ will be called to account for the blood of the prophets shed from Abel to Zechariah (cf. also Q 11.50). On this basis, then, it seems Q has Jesus in mind as one of the rejected and murdered prophets for whose blood ‘this generation’ will have to give account. But who does Q mean by the tag ‘this generation’? Probably this refers to those hearing and rejecting Q’s proclamation, but they also share common traits with those who through history—from the beginning until the ministry of Jesus, and on into the mission of the Q community—have rejected the entreaties of God. Thus, those who reject the proclamation of the Q community not identify themselves by this means with the specific people who rejected John and Jesus and with all the others who through history rejected God’s emissaries; but this does not mean that one can ‘extend this to “all Israel” simpliciter’. This view of the historical kingship of those who reject God and the prophets is consistent with the application elsewhere of the deuteronomistic paradigm (see, for instance, Acts 7.52). (pp. 14-15)
Q, then, not only betrays a knowledge of the death of Jesus, but also shows evidence of attempts to interpret it theologically or to handle it rhetorically, despite its failure to mention it directly. (p. 18)
Funnily enough, I have seen Shabir Ally reference Smith’s work to support Islamic Christology. Of course, this again highlights something I keep saying—always source-check references as much as one can.