Thoughts on Antiquity

Scholars often make minor changes in opinion and are not explicit about it, which can be frustrating to those trying to understand their own position in relation to them. Moreover, scholars often appropriate other work and make minor changes that they are similarly quiet about. Below I have Burton L. Mack, J. Dominic Crossan, and John S. Kloppenborg’s work on the compositional history of Q and some work related to the historical Jesus.

To forewarn the reader, this is kind of pedantic stuff and I will be doing a tedious three-part series on it over the next few days. Godspeed to anyone who reads each of them.

Crossan divides the Jesus tradition into units he calls “complexes.” These consist of a saying or deed attributed to Jesus and all its parallels. A wiki entry on all of it can be found here. For example, the first “complex” is listed as follows:

1+. Mission and Message: (1a) 1 Cor 9:14; (1b) 1 Cor 10:27; (2) Gos. Thom. 14:2; (3) 1Q: Luke 10:(1),4-11 = Matt 10:7,10b,12-14; (4) Mark 6:7-13 = Matt 10:1,8-10a,11 = Luke 9:1-6; (5) Dial. Sav. 20 [53b, or 139:9-10]; (6) Did. 11-13 [see 11:4-6 & 13:1-2]; (7) 1 Tim 5:18b.

Anyone needing clarification should check out the links above.

Crossan originally had 503 complexes (Sayings Parallels) of sayings and deeds attributed to Jesus in the first 140 years of the Common Era, but he subsequently revised the count to 522 for Historical Jesus and made some additional adjustments in Birth of Christianity. I am unaware if he added any more complexes because of the Gospel of Judas’ discovery or any modifications that would result from it.

---

Crossan’s work on Q is a bit difficult to explain like this, but here it goes. Complexes are per Crossan, Historical Jesus, 434–450 (duplicated in link above) and Birth of Christianity, 587–596. For Crossan, authentic sayings are in bold, ± are italicized, and all complexes independently attested only in Q follow the double vertical lines (||). The exact meaning of these can be found in the link above.

Unbracketed numbers are complexes in the same layer in both the HJ and BoC.
[Single brackets] indicate that it was in a given layer for HJ, but omitted from Q for BoC.
[[Double brackets]] indicate that it was absent from Q in HJ, but in a given layer for BoC.
{Curly brackets} indicate that a complex moved from “1or2Q” in HJ to a more secure position in BoC; Crossan does not use “1or2Q” in BoC.

Q1: 1, 4, 10, 27, 32, 33, {35}, 41, 43, 44, 48, 50, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 66, 76, 79, 80, 82, {86}, 89, 96, 99, 101, 103, {104}, {107}, 111, 114, 117, 118, 120, 126 || 140, 141, 142, 145, 147, 149, 158, 159, 160, 163. 42 complexes originally + 4 = 46 total.

“1Q?”: [24], [72], [94], [97] || [146]. 5 complexes originally – 5 = 0 total.

“1or2Q”: 15, 35, 86, 104, 107 || 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173. 11 complexes originally – 11 = 0 total.

Q2: 8, 12, 14, {15}, 23, 28, [31], 36, 40, 45, 48, 51, [53], 57, 74, [[81]], 84, 85, 91, 95, 102, 115, 119, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 || 137, 138, 143, 144, 148, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 161, 162, 164, 165, 166, 167, {168}, {169}, {170}, {171}, {172}, {173}, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179. 51 complexes originally – 2 + 8 = 57 total.

Q3: 116 || 139. 2 total complexes.

Singly-attested Lukan material (all from 431 to 480 inauthentic except the following): 444, 447, 449, 454, 461, 462, 464, 465, 466, 471, 473, 474, 480. 49 total complexes. To be clear, this category excludes special-Lukan material with independent parallels to any other Christian literature before 140 CE.

Notes on Crossan: Crossan never explained what “1Q?” or “1or2Q” meant in HJ. “1Q?” may refer to singly-attested Lukan material that Crossan thinks may have been in Q; Q1, specifically. “1or2Q” appears to express ambivalence over the stratum’s location, though it is securely in Q. Interestingly, all complexes labeled “1or2Q” in HJ with parallels in the Gospel of Thomas became Q1 in BoC; he had previously labeled all of these authentic to Jesus. All “1or2Q” complexes in HJ without parallels in the Gospel of Thomas became Q2 in BoC.

---

Burton Mack’s reconstruction of the earliest layers of Q is a bit different. Not least of these differences is the content of each complex per Mack. Anyone interested in this ought to buy his book or read his reconstruction here, from Lost Gospel.
[Brackets] surround a complex in Q0, not in Q1, but in Q2.

Q1: 1, 4, 27, 32, 33, 35, 41, 43, 44, 50, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 63, 76, 79, 80, 82, 89, 95, 96, 99, 101, 103, 104, 111, 114, 117, 118, 120, 126, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 149, 158, 159, 160, 379. 44 total complexes.
Mack on Q0, per John Kloppenborg (Excavating Q, 185 n. 21): 4, 32, 41, 43, 50, 60, 61, 63, 80, 82, 99, 101, 114, 126, 158, 159, 379. 16 total complexes.
Mack on Q0, per note below: 1, 4, 32, 41, 43, [48], 50, 60, 63, 76, 80, 82, 99, 101, 103, 114, 118, 126, 140, 145, 147, 159, 379. 23 total complexes.

Note on Mack: Burton Mack’s hypothesized a pre-Q1 document (Q0 above) whose contents he never clearly delimits. John Kloppenborg speculated about what this might include, but I disagree with some of his interpretations.

Kloppenborg takes the sayings listed in Mack, Lost Gospel, 110–111 to be the extent of Mack’s Q0. It is unclear whether Mack limits Q0 to the “maxims” listed on the cited page (as Kloppenborg takes it), or if this includes the imperatives listed in Lost Gospel, 112–113 (which I understand it to be). I would like to point out that those which I understand to be in Mack’s Q0 are all listed before he takes time to “expand the data base somewhat” to include the full extent of Q1 on Mack, Lost Gospel, 113–114.

Stephen Patterson criticizes Mack for offering “no methodological grounds for identifying [Q1’s] core. No rationale is given for placing this or that tradition in the core or for omitting others. Mack simply asserts the core’s existence and its content.” (“Q: The Lost Gospel,” 62)

For another point of comparison, here is Mack’s reconstruction of the Markan chreiae source.
Mack’s candidates for authenticity are in bold.

Mack on Markan chreiae source, per A Myth of Innocence: 19, 20, 22, 52, 56, 92, 105, 106, 113, 121, 122, 127, 191, 192, 199, 201, 202, 218, 219, 234, 235, 237, 240, 244, 246, 252, 253, 254, 261, 262, 264. 31 total complexes.

It is worth noting the futility in reading Mack’s work this way, since he seems to intend to complicate dominant understandings of early Christian mythopoeism.

Next post will be a comparison of these two scholars.