Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§7.4 The Sources
of genre as having an inherent character analogous to the genetic determinism
advocated by some contemporary biologists. All in all, the attempt to classify
and demarcate genre types has not proved very helpful in the discussion of Q.
More to the point is the question of redaction itself. Here we need to remind
ourselves of the methodological problems in such an analysis. 74 If we take
the parallel of Mark, it has proved difficult enough to determine redaction in
Mark's case. There are, after all, no firm rules which enable modern commentators
to distinguish clearly (outside the more obviously editorial linking passages)
what Mark has retained or added: for example, regularity of word and motif in
Mark tells us nothing as to whether the word or motif occurred regularly, occasionally
or not at all in Mark's sources. 75 And if identification of redaction is difficult
in a case where the text of the document (Mark) is firm, how much more
difficult in the case of Q whose text is always a matter of argument and hypothesis.
76 How in particular is one to distinguish redaction from (initial) composition?
77 If a redactor was not troubled by the presence of aporiae and tensions in
74. Kloppenborg offers his 'methodological considerations' in Formation 96-101; also
Excavating Q 114-18.
75. Cf. particularly P. Dschulnigg, Sprache, Redaktion und Intention des Markus-
Evangeliums (SBB 11; Stuttgart: Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1986). Despite, e.g., R. H. Stein,
'The Proper Methodology for Ascertaining a Markan Redaction History', NovT 13 (1971) 181-
98; E. J. Pryke, Redactional Style in the Marcan Gospel (SNTSMS 33; Cambridge: Cambridge
University, 1978). A good example is the issue of a pre-Markan Passion narrative (see below,
§17.1).
76. The result has been, apart from those following Kloppenborg, that more or less every
redactional study of Q comes up with its own compositional history; cf., e.g., S. Schulz, Q:
Spruchquelle der Evangelisten (Zürich: Theologischer, 1972); M. Sato, Q und Prophetie:
Studien zur Gattungs- und Traditionsgeschichte der Quelle Q (WUNT 2.29; Tübingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 1988); Allison, Jesus Tradition 8-37. It is true, however, that there is a substantial
Kloppenborg consensus regarding the redactional character of the theme of judgment against
'this generation'. But see below, chapter 12. n. 397.
77. Note particularly Tuckett's criticisms at this point (Q 52-82): e.g., 'Lührmann's
"Redaktion" is not so very different from the "Sammlung" from which he would distinguish it'
(56); 'Jacobson's "compositional" stage is very similar to Lührmann's final redactional stage'
(63). Contrast also, Jacobson's conclusion that 'an older Son of Man layer', a 'block of apocalyptic
paraenesis, buttressed ... by the imminent expectation of the Son of Man' underlies the
'later layer of Deuteronomistic-Wisdom material' ('Unity' 114-15; similarly Lührmann,
Redaktion 93-100), with Koester's argument that an earlier wisdom/prophetic layer has been
modified by the inclusion of Son of Man sayings ('GNOMAI DIAPHOROF 138; also Ancient
Christian Gospels 133-62). Bultmann, it should be recalled, concluded that announcements regarding
the coming Kingdom of God went back to Jesus, whereas many of the wisdom sayings
were plundered from Jewish wisdom ('New Approach' 57-58; 'Study' 55-57). Kloppenborg's
earlier article, 'Tradition and Redaction in the Synoptic Sayings Source', CBQ 46 (1984) 34-
62, provides several reminders of the breadth of disagreement and of the many imponderables
in the quest for Q redaction. J. M. Robinson, 'The Q Trajectory: Between John and Matthew
155