Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

FROM THE GOSPELS TO JESUS §7.4
his final text, would an initial compositor of Q have felt any different? 78 How can
one both argue for the coherence and unity of Q (as proof of its existence), and at
the same time argue that internal tensions indicate disunity, without the one argument
throwing the other into question? 79 Textual tensions are no clear proof of
redactional layers (what author ever succeeded in removing all tensions from his/
her final product, or attempted to do so?). 80 Clinical technique here is in danger
of running ahead of common sense. That said, I do not deny the plausibility of
detecting at least some redaction in the composition of Q (above n. 62).
My questions begin to multiply however when we turn our focus on to Q 1 .
Kloppenborg does not explicitly address the issue of whether Q 1 was also a document,
certainly not in the way he addresses the issue of whether Q itself was a
document. 81 All he actually demonstrates is the plausibility of detecting clusters
of sayings which have been taken over (and redacted) at the stage of composing
Q (or Q 2 ). He does not actually demonstrate that Q 1 ever functioned as a single
document or stratum in his excavations into Q. And on closer examination it is
hard to detect a unifying theme or redactional motif which links them together
(as, arguably, is the case with the motif of coming judgment in Q itself). What we
seem to have, rather, is six(?) clusters of Jesus' teaching: (1) the somewhat disparate
material gathered into 'the Sermon on the Plain' (Q 6.20-23, 27-49);
(2) teaching on discipleship and mission (9.57-62; 10.2-11, 16); (3) teaching on
prayer (11.2-4, 9-13); (4) encouragement to fearless confession (12.2-7, 11-12);
via Jesus', in B. A. Pearson, ed., The Future of Early Christianity, H. Koester FS (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 1991) 173-94 provides a lucid account of the two main competing perspectives in attempts
to reconstruct Q's history ('trajectory').
78. In Koester's view the apocalyptic material 'conflicts' with the emphasis of the wisdom
and prophetic material {Ancient Christian Gospels 135). Kloppenborg speaks of 'aporiae
created by redactional activity' or of a group of sayings 'modified by the insertion of a secondary
expansion or commentary . . .' (Formation 97, 99); but that simply begs the question, as
Kloppenborg seems to realise (Formation 99).
79. Jacobson, 'Unity', is particularly vulnerable at this point (cf. Tuckett, Q 63-64).
Here again Streeter's words of caution have been too much ignored (Four Gospels 235-38).
80. The pendulum may have begun to swing against Kloppenborg in recent treatments
of Q which argue for a single compositional stage: Schröter, Erinnerung particularly 216-17,
292-93, 368-69, 449-50, 468-72; Kirk, Composition of the Sayings Source: 'No warrants exist
for supposing that a single one [of Q's twelve speeches] formed gradually or incrementally or is
a sedimentized witness to some multi-layered archaeology of early Christianity' (269); Horsley
in Horsley and Draper, Whoever 23-24, 61-62, 83-93, 148; P. Hoffmann, 'Mutmassungen über
Q: zum Problem der literarischen Genese von Q', in Lindemann, ed., Sayings Source Q 255-88
(conclusion 286); D. Lührmann is also dubious about Kloppenborg's suggested composition
history of Q ('Die Logienquelle und die Leben-Jesu-Forschung', in Lindemann, ed., Sayings
Source Q 191-206 [here 204]).
81. He does, however, assume it (Excavating Q 159, 197, 200, 208-209); see also 154-
59 on the genre of Q 1 .
156