Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§7.4 The Sources
round the motif of coming judgment and on the lines of Deuteronomistic theology
is impressive. 61 As is also the evidence marshalled of interpolations into earlier
material. 62 I do not particularly wish to dissent from the working hypothesis
that Q was a carefully structured document. What remains unclear to me, however,
is what we might call the status of the Q 1 material.
One principal focus of discussion thus far has been the question of genre.
Kloppenborg initially left himself somewhat vulnerable on this front in talking of
sayings appropriate to different genres, and seeming to assume, for example, that
a wisdom genre may not 'permit' apocalyptic forms. 63 Such an argument would
fall into the same trap as that of the early form critics who postulated the concept
of 'pure' forms, and consequently found it necessary to classify various of the actual
Synoptic pericopes as 'mixed' forms. 64 But Kloppenborg is well aware of
examples of 'mixed genres' in the literature of the period, 65 and that the second
stage compiler, on his own hypothesis, evidently had no qualms in combining the
logical orientation of the earliest composition of Q' (The Sayings of Q and Their Image of Jesus',
in W. L. Petersen, et al., eds., Sayings of Jesus: Canonical and Non-canonical, T. Baarda
FS [NovTSup 89; Leiden: Brill, 1997] 137-54 [here 145]); 'the image of Jesus that is accessible
through the most original version of Q is that of an eschatological prophet' (153).
61. See Kloppenborg Verbin, Excavating Q 118-24; he now sees the story of Lot as a
further structural element (118-21).
62. Q 6.23c; 10.12, 13-15; 12.8-10 (Excavating Q 147-50).
63. I echo Kloppenborg's language (Formation 31).
64. See particularly Allison, Jesus Tradition 4-7, 41-42; A. Kirk, The Composition of the
Sayings Source: Genre, Synchrony and Wisdom Redaction in Q (NovTSup 91; Leiden: Brill,
1998) 64-86: 'the question of the degree of coherence and cohesion actually present in a given
text must not be begged' (67); 'mixing genres in literature often seems the rule rather than the
exception' (270); 'mixing of genres does not necessitate a redaction-fcrory judgment if the
genres in question are integrated with respect to each other and to the total textual Gestalt'
(400). It is somewhat surprising that Kloppenborg has not interacted more fully with Kirk (his
pupil) in his Excavating Q. Cf. also Horsley in Horsley and Draper, Whoever 69-75: 'if even
"those sections of Q that supposedly do reflect apocalyptic idiom" are restrained and selective
and the nonapocalyptic "sapiential" sections of Q are also pervaded by an "eschatological
tenor", it would seem that precious few apocalyptic forms and motifs remain as the differentiating
features' (72, citing Kloppenborg); 'If Wisdom appears in "apocalyptic" or prophetic sayings
and "sapiential" sayings use apocalyptic language against the sages, then the criteria of
categorization require critical attention' (74).
64. Kloppenborg, Formation 96-101.
65. E.g., CD and 1QS from the DSS, or T. 12 Patr. from Jewish pseudepigrapha and
Revelation from the NT; see further D. J. Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (London:
Routledge, 1996). Kloppenborg, noting that Proverbs contains some prophetic motifs and that
Isaiah has absorbed sapiential elements, is initially critical of Koester for assuming that apocalyptic
Son of Man and future-oriented eschatology sayings run counter to the tendencies of the
'wisdom gospel' genre and 'for that reason are judged to be secondary' (Formation 37-39; referring
to Koester, 'GNOMAI DIAPHOROI').
153