It has long been suspected by New Testament scholars that there was a now lost Q source which contained sayings by Jesus found in Matthew and Luke that did not come from Mark, and may have been very early. The earliest layer of these sayings seems to be a collection of Cynic-like sayings, which as I said previously some suggest need not come from a single Cynic sage, let alone the historical Jesus, since the commonality between these sayings is just their same Cynic flavor. In this way, the Son of Man imagery in Q may be appropriating a corporate Son of Man from Daniel, the collective “holy ones of the most high.

John Dominic Crossan published a very interesting book about a decade ago, The Power of Parable, arguing that fictions told by Jesus developed into fictions about Jesus. We might extend this to suppose sayings preserved in the Q source actually reflect how the Jesus story originated.

Scholars note that ancient interpretations of the cross included the idea that the wrongful crucifixion of God’s especially beloved (agapetos) Jesus resulted in God’s wrath with the destruction of the temple in 70CE, and the Jews getting booted from the land post Bar Kokhba. It was thereby being interpreted analogous to the destruction of the 1st temple, and along the same theological lines of the angels being sent to test the people in Lot’s story.

In the same way Adam’s eyes were opened when he broke God’s command and he saw his nakedness, the idea is to see yourself in the world that wrongfully turned upon Jesus (e.g., the corrupt trial by the Jewish high council), and have this reboot your moral outlook/disposition. We thus have the central story of the soldier at the cross looking up at Jesus and being converted, Like with Cleomenes in Plutarch. Jesus reflects the failed messianic type prevalent at the time who can nonetheless be victorious if specially favored by God.

Jesus in Q says to turn the other cheek (Matthew 5:39), to turn the tables on those who seek to harm us and to overcome evil through creative acts of nonviolent resistance. Jesus also says in Q to “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” in Matthew 5:44. These seem to have been the source for the Jesus story.

There are several bible instances where individuals endure suffering or show mercy in the face of persecution, leading their adversaries to recognize the injustice or divine truth in their actions. These align with the theme of nonviolent resistance or forbearance that prompts a moment of clarity for the wrongdoer.

With David sparing Saul’s life (1 Samuel 24), While hiding in a cave, David has the opportunity to kill King Saul, who is pursuing him unjustly. Instead, David cuts off a corner of Saul’s robe as proof but spares his life, declaring that he will not harm the Lord’s anointed. When Saul learns of this, he weeps and acknowledges his wrongdoing, saying, “You are more righteous than I; you have treated me well, but I have treated you badly.” This act of restraint opens Saul’s eyes to his own malice, leading him to bless David and recognize him as the future king.

A similar event occurs in 1 Samuel 26, where David again spares Saul during a vulnerable moment, and Saul admits, “I have sinned… I have acted like a fool and have been terribly wrong.”

As I said, as Jesus suffers and dies on the cross without resistance, enduring mockery and violence, a Roman centurion overseeing the execution witnesses the events, including the earthquake and darkness. He declares, “Surely this man was the Son of God!” (or in Luke, “Surely this was a righteous man”). This realization comes from observing Jesus’ innocent suffering and composure, prompting the soldier—part of the oppressive Roman forces—to affirm Jesus’ divine or righteous nature.

Nebuchadnezzar after the fiery furnace (Daniel 3), has Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refuse to worship King Nebuchadnezzar’s golden image, leading to their being thrown into a blazing furnace. They emerge unharmed, protected by a divine figure. Witnessing this miraculous survival amid the intended violence, Nebuchadnezzar praises their God, saying, “Praise be to the God of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego, who has sent his angel and rescued his servants!” He then promotes them and decrees that no one should speak against their God, recognizing the error in his coercive idolatry. A parallel occurs in Daniel 6, where King Darius sees Daniel unharmed in the lions’ den and issues a decree honoring Daniel’s God.

These stories illustrate how enduring persecution without retaliation can lead oppressors to confront the moral or spiritual implications of their actions, which is a popular theme in ancient literature, and probably influenced the Jews as part of the Greco-Roman culture. Examples from Other Ancient Literature depict similar themes, where suffering or nonviolent endurance exposes the perpetrator’s flaws, often leading to remorse, empathy, or transformation.

With Ashoka after the Kalinga War (from Ashoka’s Rock Edicts and Buddhist legends), Emperor Ashoka of the Maurya Empire wages a brutal war against Kalinga around 261 BCE, resulting in massive bloodshed and suffering. Horrified by the devastation he witnesses—hundreds of thousands killed, deported, or left in misery—Ashoka renounces violence and converts to Buddhism. His edicts express deep remorse, stating that the conquest caused him “profound sorrow and regret,” and he commits to dharma (righteousness) and nonviolence, promoting welfare and tolerance across his empire. Here, the victims’ suffering opens Ashoka’s eyes to the futility and horror of his aggression.

For Creon in Sophocles’ Antigone (c. 441 BCE), Antigone defies King Creon’s edict by burying her brother Polyneices, leading to her imprisonment and eventual suicide. Creon’s rigid enforcement of state law over familial and divine rites causes cascading tragedies, including the suicides of his son Haemon (Antigone’s fiancé) and his wife Eurydice. Too late, Creon realizes his hubris and the violence of his decisions, lamenting, “Alas, I have learned it in my misery!” and acknowledging that his stubbornness has destroyed his family. Antigone’s principled suffering highlights Creon’s error, forcing him to confront the human cost of his tyranny.

Achilles and Priam in Homer’s Iliad (Book 24, c. 8th century BCE) has Achilles kills Hector in rage over Patroclus’ death, he desecrates the body. King Priam, Hector’s father, risks his life to beg Achilles for the corpse, enduring humiliation and invoking shared human grief. Witnessing Priam’s suffering and vulnerability, Achilles is moved to pity, recognizing their common fate under the gods’ whims. He weeps with Priam, returns the body, and arranges a truce for burial. This moment humanizes the enemy, leading Achilles to a profound realization of empathy amid war’s brutality.

So, with the Jewish-Cynic nature of Q, we may in fact have a tradition of sayings preserved in the Q source that later became the story of the wrongful death of Jesus. And it works. The wrongful death of Socrates, for instance, taught us not to kill people guilty of what Socrates was charged which was really just being a gadfly and annoying people. This is the image in the most famous book in the ancient world, Plato’s Republic, as to why being an impaled (crucifixion being a kind of impalement) just man is better than the longevity of an evil man. – because of what a righteous death can accomplish.

There is discussion now as to whether we date Paul as early or late, as well as whether the cross means substitutionary atonement to satisfy God’s wrath at the sinfulness of the Jews, or Moral Influence of people having their eyes opened to the way Satan has been controlling them (e.g., Satan entered into Judas), or both / reflecting the multiple modes of dealing with sin (and various meanings of sin) such as in Romans.