Jeffrey Gibson claims that a whole string of scholars, including
Kloppenborg, believe that:
<< ...the saying against signs had from the beginning as its
contextualizing frame..... Q11:14 >> , the exorcism of a mute demoniac.
Do you mean from the beginning of the oral tradition? If so, then
you're quite wrong.
I've just been along to the local university arts library and checked
what J.S.Kloppenborg has to say in _The Formation of Q_. (Fortress
Press, Philadelphia, 1987).
Kloppenborg has a quite separate discussion of the development of the
sayings in Luke 11:14-15,17-20 on the one hand 11:16,29-32 on the other
hand. He mentions the variant opinions of Schuermann, Polag and
Schweizer, but it is evident that all four of these scholars see these
two groups of sayings material as being separate in the oral tradition
which preceded Q.
Kloppenborg sees the saying against signs as having developed in three
(2) addition of Q11:30
(3) addition of Q11:31-32.
Thus the story of the exorcism of a mute demoniac has no special
relevance to the meaning of Jesus of Nazareth's refusal to give a sign.
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK