Q and the Historical Jesus, Pt. 3
John Kloppenborg hypothesizes that Q was composed in three stages (see his Formation of Q or Excavating Q). Brackets indicate that I am unsure this is the first time he proposed such a change. Parentheses indicate Kloppenborg’s tentative conclusions. Letters represent blocks of Q material, when in quotes, a new block is added, and when alone it refers only to the location of the verses. This post doesn’t really relate to the historical Jesus.
1984 (Dissertation)
Q1: A 6:20b-23b, 27-49 (37b?); B 9:57-62, 10:2-10, 16; C 11:2-4, 11:9-13; D 12:2-7, 11-12; E 12:22-31, 33-34; F 13:24, 14:26-27, 17:33, 14:34-35
Q2: A 3:7-9, 16-17; B 7:1-10, 18-23, 24-28, (16:16?), 31-35; C 11:14-15, 17-26, 16, 29-36, 39-52; D 17:23-37 Interpolations: 6:23c, 10(:12), 13-15, 21-24, 12:8-10, 12:39-40, 13:(25), 26-30
Q3: 4:1-13
1986
Q1: omit E 12:22a; add “G”: 15:4-7, (8-10?), 16:13, 18, 17:1-2, 3b-4, 6
Q2: add “E” (12:39-40, 42b-46, 49, 50-53, 54-59)
1987 (Published Dissertation)
Q2: add interpolations (10:21-24); 10:12 now secure; 12:39-40 stratum now insecure
1990
Q2: move 16:16 to Lukan context (stratum now insecure, interpolation); add A (3:2-3)
Q3: add interpolations 16:17, 11:42c
1995
Q1: add E 13:18-21, add “H”: (15:4-10, 16:13, 16, 18, 17:1-4, 6)
2000 (Excavating Q)
Q1: add B (10:23-24); add E [(13:18-21)]; [(9:61-62)] now tentative
Q2: add C [(11:27-28)]; remove 10:23-24
Q3: add interpolation (10:21-22?)
Chris,
By far Kloppenborg has a better thought out stratification scheme. He is also less likely to label these sources based on what he would *like* to see the case (not such a sure thing with Mack or even Crossan, who are rather “fuzzy” in their criteria, resulting in a number of internal inconsistencies).
Generally, he seems to see the older Q1 layer as wisdom sayings (he tends to avoid categorically saying they are bona-fide sayings of Jesus, but seems to be leaning that way), with the redactive layers attempts to “Judaiaze” them (I am speaking *very* generally, in order not to impute motive on those who edited the wisdom traditions).
What do you make of this? Do you think he is correct, or is he in error? While he has his reasons for thinking Q2 layer (etc) are redactions of an earlier traditions, using strictly literary grounds, do you think the criteria he is employing to interpret these sayings secure enough to justify his conclusions? I thought he did an excellent job in justifying his conclusion about the genre of Q1 (wisdom sayings) in _The Formation of Q_. However, he has been vague about explicitly listing out layers in a table until _Excavating Q_, but I felt he maybe should have spilled a little more ink on the subject of literary indications of redaction. I have to admit I have not read any of his journal articles on the subject, so …
DCH
October 14th, 2009 at 9:08 amI’m not sure I understand what you mean in your question: are you referring to literary CRITERIA for evidence of Q2 material being redactional or do you mean the literary genre of Q2 (as a whole)?
I think he does an adequate job of explaining why Q2-redaction materials presuppose Q1 materials, especially those interrupting Q1 blocks (e.g., Q 6:23c, 10:12) and that these clearly fit his criteria for Q2 material. This would certainly indicate that Q2 materials came after Q1 materials.
If you’re referring to the genre of Q2 (or Q as a whole), I think it’s a bit more complex. That chreiai collections are a bit more amorphous (Formation, 323) with respect to forms used means that his analysis of Q fits within it, but that it’s also an easier glove to slide into. Assuming one accepts his analysis of the text, the genre of Q2 is certainly not the slam-dunk of Q1’s instruction, but it nonetheless seems a useful way to understand Q
October 14th, 2009 at 10:28 amChris,
I meant the literary criteria for determining what material should be classified as redactional Q2, as I am trying to summarize for myself the “rules” for identifying seams, sources and redaction strictly from literary criteria.
I do also question the assumption of some that Q2 strata must necessarily be later than Q1 as it is more “Jewish.” Kloppenborg, IIRC, is careful not to assume that traditions found in later strata are necessarily later in time of origin than that found in the earlier strata.
Sorry if I seemed to confuse these two issues.
DCH
October 17th, 2009 at 9:38 am