Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §7.4
different material (genres) of Q 1 and Q 2 . 66 So critics at this point should not
themselves make the mistake of which they accuse Kloppenborg, that is, of assuming
that the designation of a 'sayings' genre as a 'sapiential' sayings genre
would necessarily be restricted to exclusively 'wisdom' sayings. 67 The deficiency
of such categorisation is rather, as Christopher Tuckett has repeatedly observed,
that the range of material included by Kloppenborg in this genre gives
such a breadth of definition to 'wisdom' as to diminish its usefulness as a distinguishing
category. 68 The likening of Q to a collection of Cynic chreiae, 69 a suggestion
taken up and pushed further by others, 70 has confused the issue still further.
71 And to speak of a gnosticizing tendency in the sapiential genre 72 is to
confuse later development with original motivation, 73 and to propagate a concept
66. Cf. C. M. Tuckett, 'On the Stratification of Q: A Response', Semeia 55 (1992) 213-
22 (here 215-16). See Kloppenborg's further clarification in Excavating Q 380-82, 385-88, 394
n. 60.
67. For Kloppenborg's robust response to Horsley in particular, see Excavating Q 150-
51 n. 71.
68. Tuckett, Q particularly 345-48, 353-54; similarly Horsley in Horsley and Draper,
Whoever 77-78 and further 75-82. Schröter also points out that the vagueness of 'Logoi/Sayings'
hardly makes it a suitable criterion to distinguish a specific genre (Erinnerung 95-96).
69. Kloppenborg, Formation 306-16, 322-25; but he has repeatedly pointed out that he is
thinking in terms of form not of content.
70. Especially F. G. Downing, Cynics and Christian Origins (Edinburgh: Clark, 1992)
ch. 5; also 'The Jewish Cynic Jesus' in Labahn and Schmidt, eds., Jesus, Mark and Q 184-214;
Mack, Lost Gospel 45-46, 114-23; also The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic and Legacy (New
York: Continuum, 2001) ch. 2; Vaage, Galilean Upstarts; also 'Q and Cynicism: On Comparison
and Social Identity', in Piper, ed., The Gospel behind the Gospels 199-229; also 'Jewish
Scripture, Q and the Historical Jesus: A Cynic Way with the Word', in Lindemann, ed., Sayings
Source Q 479-95. See also Theissen, First Followers 14-15; Crossan, Historical Jesus, e.g., 338.
71. For Tuckett's critique see 'A Cynic Q?\ Biblica 70 (1989) 349-76; also Q 368-91.
See also the critiques of H. D. Betz, 'Jesus and the Cynics: Survey and Analysis of a Hypothesis',
JR 74 (1994) 453-75; J. M. Robinson, 'The History-of-Religions Taxonomy of Q: The
Cynic Hypothesis', in H. Preissler and H. Seiwert, eds., Gnosisforschung und Religionsgeschichte,
K. Rudolph FS (Marburg: Elwert, 1994) 247-65; P. R. Eddy, 'Jesus as Diogenes?
Reflections on the Cynic Jesus Thesis', JBL 115 (1996) 449-69. Robinson criticizes Vaage not
so much for finding Cynic parallels to selected texts in the formative stratum of Q as for the
texts' 'cynical interpretation that forms a Procrustean bed into which the Q movement is forced'
('Galilean Upstarts: A Sot's Cynical Disciples?', in Petersen, et al., eds., Sayings of Jesus 223-
49 [here 249]). In his most recent contribution, Kloppenborg Verbin criticizes the critics of the
Cynic Q for their theological subtexts, and prefers to speak of 'a cynic-like Q' (Excavating Q
420-42). See also chapter 9 nn. 203-204 below.
72. As does Robinson, 'LOGOI SOPHON'; Tuckett's critique in n. 71 above includes
Robinson (Q 337-43).
73. Cf. D. Liihrmann's critique of Robinson on this point (Die Redaktion der
Logienquelle [WMANT 33; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1969] 91).
154