Jesus Remembered: Christianity in the Making, vol. 1

§7.4 The Sources
(5) the right priorities (12.22-31, 33-34); (6) more teaching on discipleship
(13.24; 14.26-27; 17.33; 14.34-35). There is no reason, however, why this material
should be taken as a single document. 82 It looks in fact more like the sort of
teaching material which was no doubt rehearsed in the Q communities in their
regular gatherings, some individual items already grouped (different clusters) for
convenience and as good pedagogical practice. 83 If we follow this line of reasoning,
then the rationale for two distinct compositional layers is undermined, and
the related hypothesis that a single document (Q 1 ) represented the sole concerns
and interests of the Q people (cf. §7.4b) makes even less sense. 84 The evidence is
fully satisfied by the alternative hypothesis of a single compositional act, when
the Q author/editor pulled together these different clusters, adapted them (the
redactional interpolations), and knitted them into the larger single collection Q
(or Q 2 ). 85
82. Similarly Hoffmann's conclusion ('Mutmassungen über Q' 266). The considerations
adduced by Kloppenborg (Excavating Q 144-46, referring back to Formation ch. 5) hardly
demonstrate 'in all likelihood ... a discrete redactional stratum': (1) A common structure: but
to describe the first item in each cluster as a 'programmatic saying' overstates the case; since it
is all teaching material with the character of personal address ('you'), it naturally evinces a
'rhetoric of persuasion', but that hardly marks it out as distinctive; and the designation of the
last item in each cluster as one which 'underscores the importance of the instructions' applies
even on Kloppenborg's reckoning to only four of the six clusters. (2) To describe the content as
'an interlocking set of concerns which have to do with the legitimation of a somewhat adventuresome
social practice' implies a higher degree of intention and coherence bonding the clusters
than is actually evident.
83. This hypothesis makes as good if not better sense of the case for 'complexes of
logia' or 'collections of aphoristic sayings' behind Q, as suggested by D. Zeller, Die
weisheitlichen Mahnsprüche bei den Synoptikern (Forschung zur Bibel 17; Würzburg: Echter,
1977) 191-92, and argued particularly by R. A. Piper, Wisdom in the Q-tradition: The Aphoristic
Teaching of Jesus (SNTSMS 61; Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1989); but Zeller gives
a negative answer to the question 'Eine weisheitliche Grundschrift in der Logienquelle?', in
F. Van Segbroeck et al., eds., The Four Gospels 1992: Festschrift Frans Neirynck (Leuven:
Leuven University, 1992) 389-401. The recognition of a tendency to cluster sayings of Jesus
has been a feature of Q research — J. M. Robinson, 'Early Collections of Jesus' Sayings', in
J. Delobel, ed., Logia: Les Paroles de Jesus — The Sayings of Jesus (BETL 59; Leuven:
Peeters, 1982) 389-94; Crossan, Fragments; P. H. Sellew, Dominical Discourses: Oral Clusters
in the Jesus Sayings Tradition (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1989); R. A. Horsley, 'Q and Jesus: Assumptions,
Approaches and Analyses', in J. S. Kloppenborg and L. E. Vaage, eds., Early Christianity,
Q and Jesus, Semeia 55 (1992) 175-209.
84. The argument, e.g., that the absence of such concerns as purity distinctions and Torah
indicates the limitation of the Q people's range of interest, or that they saw Jesus more as a
sage than a prophet (Excavating Q 199, 397-98), begins to make sense only if Q 1 represented
the complete range of concerns of the Q people.
85. See further Tuckett, Q 71-74; F. G. Downing, 'Word-processing in the Ancient
World: The Social Production and Performance of Q\ JSNT 64 (1996) 29-48, reprinted in
157