Zeichman

The Q layering has become just about as much an industry as Q itself, and while it seems most big name scholars who affirm it stick closely to Kloppenborg's famous tri-layered reconstruction (Mack, Crossan, Vaage, Funk), others offer variant hypotheses (Tuckett, Koester), however similar or different. On the other hand, many scholars remain extremely sceptical of this hypothesis and reject it as premature. However, in many well-regarded works (Meier, Hurtado, Allison) there are no arguments against it, aside from somewhat polemical dismissals, such as Meier's famous creed for biblical scholars, which is not particularly helpful. Does anyone know of books or journal articles that go into detailed arguments against the Q-strata hypothesis?

I'm NOT looking for anti-Q writings, but against the stratification of the gospel. This seems to be a major point of contention between conservative and liberal biblical scholarship, which is generally not discussed, from what I've seen. Any help for the conservative response to the Q-strata hypothesis would be greatly appreciated.

Also, knowlege of any non-Kloppenborg-esque reconstructions would be helpful.

Chris Weimer

Sorry Zeichman, I still haven't dug up those links yet, but I do want to point you quickly to Dr. Dierk van den Berg's reconstruction of Q. He does accept layers. I'll be back tomorrow morning and dig through some journal articles.

RUmike

I personally have never heard an argument against layering of Q based on evidence. But isn't it Brown's position that trying to find layers in a hypothetical document is, well, stupid?

Peter Kirby

Don't forget the position that the "Q material" between Matthew and Luke does not represent a single document. (i.e., multiple documents and/or oral traditions were shared)

regards,
Peter Kirby

rob117

Out of curiosity, where does Meier dismiss Q layering? (I've read volume one of A Marginal Jew, and the layering is not discussed there.)

Zeichman

Volume II, the quote I was talking about is this:
“I cannot help thinking that biblical scholarship would be greatly advanced if every morning all exegetes would repeat as a mantra: ‘Q is a hypothetical document whose exact extension, wording, originating community, strata, and stages of redaction cannot be known.’” p 178.

Gamera

John J. Collins, "Wisdom, Apocalypticism, and Generic Compatibility," in In Search of Wisdom: Essays in Memory of John G. Gammie (or via: amazon.co.uk)* (ed. Leo Perdue et al.; Westminster/John Knox, 1993) 185. Collins attacks the logic of Kloppenborg's discerning of layerings among sapiential sections of his reconstructed Q and prophetic/judgment sections. This resulted in a rather truculent response by Kloppenborg.

mod note: searchable on Amazon

robto

There's a pretty detailed attack on Kloppenborg's layering in Whoever Hears You Hears Me (or via: amazon.co.uk), by R.A. Horsley and J.A. Draper: "Critical Examination of Recent Stratigraphy of Q", pp. 62-67. Horsley claims that none of K's features of "audience, form, and motifs" are really consistent across the layers he identifies. For instance, the "sapiential" material only appears so in contrast to the "apocalyptic" and supposedly secondary layer - which is not particularly apocalyptic, either.

Actually, the whole book is terrific - the emphasis on the oral setting of early Christianity is something too often overlooked, IMO.

Zeichman

Thanks for the help, everyone.

Do you recall what the title of Kloppenborg's response was?

Gamera

I have it somewhere. I'll get it for you shortly.