Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- List of abbreviations
- Introduction
- PART I BEFORE WRITING
- 1 ‘Gospel’ in Herodian Judaea
- 2 The gospel of Jesus
- 3 Q1 as oral tradition
- 4 Eye-witness memory and the writing of the Gospels
- PART II WRITING THE FOUR GOSPELS
- PART III AFTER WRITING
- Appendix: Graham Stanton's publications
- Bibliography
- Index of ancient sources
- Index of authors
3 - Q1 as oral tradition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 December 2009
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- List of contributors
- List of abbreviations
- Introduction
- PART I BEFORE WRITING
- 1 ‘Gospel’ in Herodian Judaea
- 2 The gospel of Jesus
- 3 Q1 as oral tradition
- 4 Eye-witness memory and the writing of the Gospels
- PART II WRITING THE FOUR GOSPELS
- PART III AFTER WRITING
- Appendix: Graham Stanton's publications
- Bibliography
- Index of ancient sources
- Index of authors
Summary
The most influential study of Q in recent years has been that of John Kloppenborg, The Formation of Q. Kloppenborg's analysis of the ‘sapiential speeches in Q’ leads him to the conclusion that ‘a collection of sapiential speeches and admonitions was the formative element in Q’, a collection ‘subsequently augmented by the addition and interpolation of apophthegms and prophetic words which pronounced doom over impenitent Israel’. This ‘formative stratum’, which can be conveniently designated Q1, consists of six ‘wisdom speeches’, ‘united not by the themes typical of the main redaction [Q2], but by paraenetic, hortatory, and instructional concerns’. The six ‘wisdom speeches’ he lists as:
Q 6.20b–23b, 27–35, 36–45, 46–9;
Q 9.57–60, (61–2); 10.2–11, 16, (23–4?);
Q 11.2–4, 9–13;
Q 12.2–7, 11–12;
Q 12.22b–31, 33–4 (13.18–19, 20–1?); and probably
Q 13.24; 14.26–7; 17.33; 14.34–5.
Kloppenborg is clear that ‘tradition-history is not convertible with literary history’, and that his concern is only with the latter; the judgment that material is redactional, secondary, is a literary judgment and need not imply anything about the historical origin or emergence of the tradition in view. So he certainly does not wish his analysis necessarily to imply that redactional material from the secondary compositional phase cannot be dominical.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Written Gospel , pp. 45 - 69Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2005
- 1
- Cited by