Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Stratification of Q

Expand Messages
  • E Bruce Brooks
    To: GThomas On: Stratification of Q From: Bruce Thomas sayings (in one way or another) relate to Synoptic sayings, among them Synoptic sayings ascribed by some
    Message 1 of 6 , Nov 6, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      To: GThomas
      On: Stratification of Q
      From: Bruce

      Thomas sayings (in one way or another) relate to Synoptic sayings, among
      them Synoptic sayings ascribed by some to Q. If Q is a single document (or a
      single fixed oral text, which comes to the same thing), then the Thomas/Q
      relation can be analyzed on that basis. But it has been proposed by several
      that Q has a compositional history, which may change the picture. John
      Kloppenborg's stratification of Q has perhaps the most currency at present.
      Roughly, he sees the sapiential sayings as oldest (Q1), followed by the
      apocalyptic sayings (Q2), with a single "temptation" passage as Q3.

      The key text is Kloppenborg's "The Formation of Q" (1987), to which a panel
      at the upcoming SBL will be devoted. In preparation for which, it would be
      handy to have a list of the contents of Q1, Q2, and Q3. Available online is
      Bill Arnal's discussion of the Kloppenborg stratification,

      http://users.misericordia.edu//davies/thomas/billklop.htm

      But what I need, in advance of the discussion, is a simple list of the
      contents of Q1, Q2, and Q3.

      Does anyone have such a list, or a reference to an online one?

      ------------

      With that in hand, the next thing of interest is whether Kloppenborg's Q
      stratification coordinates with any of the several stratifications proposed
      for Thomas. Again, I suppose someone has done that comparison, and I would
      be glad to know what the outcome was.

      Somewhat surprisingly, the Q-Thomas Reader (1990) by Kloppenborg et al, does
      not take up this issue, arguing instead that there is no significant
      relation between Thomas and the Synoptics (p85f). Nor does it give much play
      to Kloppenborg's earlier stratification of Q. That stratification is briefly
      mentioned at p24f, but does not seem to play a part in the rest of the book
      (the contents of Q are listed, in standard Lukan order, at p31f, and the
      translation of Q is also in standard order). There IS a handy list of
      Q-Thomas parallels (40 of them), in Thomas order, at the end of the book
      (p159). Some passages in the Q column are bracketed, as "rough" parallels.

      (For what interest it may have, I note that these "rough" parallels are much
      commoner in the first part of Thomas (in fact, the part included by passages
      witnessed by the Greek fragments, namely Th 1-39), than in the rest of
      Thomas (the part from Th 40 on, which is witnessed only by the Coptic text:
      Th 40-114. The number of "rough" parallels in the Th 1-39 sector is 4; the
      number in the rest of the text is 1, namely Q6:22 ~ Th 58 ). On this modest
      bit of data, taking it as it stands, it would seem that Thomas, if it did
      itself have a compositional history, got increasingly close to its Synoptic
      counterpart as it went along].

      Any help welcome. Thanks in advance,

      Bruce

      E Bruce Brooks
      Warring States Project
      University of Massachusetts at Amherst
    • Mark M. Mattison
      Bruce, Have you checked out this PDF? http://www.tonyburke.ca/wp-content/uploads/Burton-Macks-Q-Text.pdf -Mark Mattison
      Message 2 of 6 , Nov 6, 2012
      • 0 Attachment
        Bruce,

        Have you checked out this PDF?

        http://www.tonyburke.ca/wp-content/uploads/Burton-Macks-Q-Text.pdf

        -Mark Mattison
      • Ian Brown
        Hi Bruce,   I also wanted to have Q’s stratification (according to Kloppenborg) next to the Thomas parallels, so I wrote them into the back of my Q/Thomas
        Message 3 of 6 , Nov 6, 2012
        • 0 Attachment

          Hi Bruce,
           
          I also wanted to have Q’s stratification (according to Kloppenborg) next to the Thomas parallels, so I wrote them into the back of my Q/Thomas Reader.
           
          Q1 Parallels
          Q11:9//TH 2:1                      Q12:2//TH5:2               Q11:1-4//TH6:1-2       Q12:2//TH 6:3
          Q6:41-42//TH26:1-2          Q 12:3//TH33:1           Q6:39//TH34                 Q12:22-30//TH36
          Q 6:43-44a//TH43:3           Q6:44B//TH45:1         Q6:45a//TH45:2           Q6:45b//TH45:3
          Q6:20b//TH54                      Q14:26-27//TH55      Q6:22//TH58                  Q6:22-23//TH68:1-2, 69:1
          Q6:21a//TH69:2                   Q10:2//TH73               Q9:58//TH86:1-2          Q11:9//TH92:1       
          Q6:34-35a//TH95:1-2         Q14:26-27//TH101:1-3                                         Q15:3-7//TH107:1-3
           
          Q2 Parallels
          Q12:51-53//TH16:1-4        Q10:23-24//TH17               Q12:39//TH21:3
          Q11:33//TH33:2-3              Q11:21-22//TH35:1-2        Q10:23-24//TH38:1
          Q11:52//TH39:1-2              Q19:26//TH41:1-2              Q12:10//TH44:1-3
          Q7:28//TH46:1                    Q14:15-24//TH62:1-12      Q7:24-26//TH78:1-3
          Q11:39-41//TH89:1-2        Q13:20-21//TH96:1-2        Q12:39//TH103
           
          I have Q16:17//TH 11:1 as a Q3 parallel, but not sure if I wrote that wrong. Also, don’t have anything written at Q16:13//TH47:2. I’ll try to find those tonight.

          Ian Brown


        • Ian Brown
          Hmmmm, looks like my message didn t make it through cyber space. Here it is again. Hi Bruce,   Hi Bruce,   I also wanted to have Q’s stratification
          Message 4 of 6 , Nov 6, 2012
          • 0 Attachment
            Hmmmm, looks like my message didn't make it through cyber space. Here it is again.

            Hi Bruce,
             
            Hi Bruce,
             
            I also wanted to have Q’s stratification (according to Kloppenborg) next to the Thomas parallels, so I wrote them into the back of my Q/Thomas Reader.
             
            Q1 Parallels
            Q11:9//TH 2:1                      Q12:2//TH5:2           Q11:1-4//TH6:1-2  
            Q12:2//TH 6:3                      Q6:41-42//TH26:1-2
            Q 12:3//TH33:1                   Q6:39//TH34                        Q12:22-30//TH36              
            Q 6:43-44a//TH43:3                       Q6:44B//TH45:1      Q6:45a//TH45:2
            Q6:45b//TH45:3                  Q6:20b//TH54         Q14:26-27//TH55
            Q6:22//TH58                                    Q6:22-23//TH68:1-2, 69:1
            Q6:21a//TH69:2                  Q10:2//TH73                        Q9:58//TH86:1-2Q11:9//TH92:1
            Q6:34-35a//TH95:1-2         Q14:26-27//TH101:1-3
            Q15:3-7//TH107:1-3
             
            Q2 Parallels
            Q12:51-53//TH16:1-4        Q10:23-24//TH17               Q12:39//TH21:3
            Q11:33//TH33:2-3              Q11:21-22//TH35:1-2        Q10:23-24//TH38:1
            Q11:52//TH39:1-2              Q19:26//TH41:1-2              Q12:10//TH44:1-3
            Q7:28//TH46:1                    Q14:15-24//TH62:1-12      Q7:24-26//TH78:1-3
            Q11:39-41//TH89:1-2        Q13:20-21//TH96:1-2        Q12:39//TH103
             
            I have Q16:17//TH 11:1 as a Q3 parallel, but not sure if I wrote that wrong. Also, don’t have anything written at Q16:13//TH47:2. I’ll try to find those tonight.

            Ian Brown


            From: Ian Brown <ianbrown6796@...>
            To: "gthomas@yahoogroups.com" <gthomas@yahoogroups.com>
            Sent: Tuesday, November 6, 2012 4:29:15 PM
            Subject: Re: [GTh] Stratification of Q

             



          • E Bruce Brooks
            To: GThos On: Kloppenborg s G1-3 From: Bruce Thanks to all three respondents for their help with identifying the Kloppenborg layers. On cross-checking (Ian
            Message 5 of 6 , Nov 7, 2012
            • 0 Attachment
              To: GThos
              On: Kloppenborg's G1-3
              From: Bruce

              Thanks to all three respondents for their help with identifying the
              Kloppenborg layers. On cross-checking (Ian Brown's list and the one cited by
              Mark Mattison were visually the easiest to use) I seem to find the following
              discrepancies:

              Mack G1 (bold); Ian G2:

              Q13:20-21 = Th 96:1-2
              Q14:15-24 = Th 64:1-12 (not listed by Ian)

              Mack G2 (regular type); Ian G1:

              Q15:3-7 = Th 107:1-3

              Does someone care to adjudicate?

              Thanks,

              Bruce

              E Bruce Brooks
              Warring States Project
              University of Massachusetts at Amherst
            • E Bruce Brooks
              To: GThomas On: Kloppenborg s Q Stratification From: Bruce Perhaps, having looked into The Formation of Q with indifferent result, I might reply to my own
              Message 6 of 6 , Nov 7, 2012
              • 0 Attachment
                To: GThomas
                On: Kloppenborg's Q Stratification
                From: Bruce

                Perhaps, having looked into "The Formation of Q" with indifferent result, I
                might reply to my own request for clarification of three passages which
                different respondents assign to different Kloppenborg strata.

                My response is that perhaps it doesn't matter. However one classifies the
                three passages, it seems abundantly clear from the undisputed others that,
                if Kloppenborg's 3-layer stratification in time is correct, then the Thomas
                material (if both stratified and linear) does not follow it. That is, the
                "sapiential" material does not cluster in low-numbered Thomas sayings, nor
                does the "apocalyptic" material cluster in high-numbered ones. So if (1)
                there was a Q, and if (2) it had early and late layers as K suggests, then
                (3) Thomas draws equally on the whole thing, and is thus post-Q3.

                This is another way of saying that Thomas, as a whole and in its present
                condition, is post-Synoptic. I put it this way to reserve the possibility
                that, as DeConick and others have proposed, Thomas itself is stratified.
                This opens the possibility that though part, perhaps much, of Thomas is
                post-Synoptic (meaning in this case, post-Mt/Lk), other parts might be
                earlier.

                NOTE ON TERMINOLOGY

                Those of us who disbelieve in Q have a problem in referring to this
                material. To use the term "Q" merely reifies that theory, so it would be
                better to have a noncommittal name. Since the root of the idea refers to
                material common to Mt and Lk but not in Mk (admittedly, that definition has
                been subsequently expanded), and since on most people's understanding these
                texts are post-70, and thus also post-Pauline, I propose the term "P" as
                reminiscent of the phrase "post-Pauline."

                If some parts of this material had earlier origins, that could always be
                demonstrated. Kloppenborg, for instance, could make his argument that the
                sapiential parts of the Mt/Lk material actually are earlier than Mt/Lk. But
                the initial presumption would be that all of it arose in the post-Markan
                period defined by Matthew and Luke.

                Bruce

                E Bruce Brooks
                Warring States Project
                University of Massachusetts at Amherst
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.