Rollens Review of Ra

In The Formation of Q, John S. Kloppenborg identifies three redactional layers in the Sayings Gospel Q: the ‘formative stratum’ (or Q1), the ‘main redaction’ (or Q2), and the ‘final recension’ (or Q3). He ascribes Q 13:25–7 in its entirety to the main redaction. As an alternative, I argue that verse 25 belongs to the formative stratum, while verses 26–7 belong to the main redaction. To substantiate the preceding case, verse 25 is measured against Kloppenborg’s own criteria for distinguishing between the formative stratum and the main redaction, namely those of ‘characteristic forms’, ‘characteristic motifs’, and ‘implied audience’.

Ulysses Press, 2005

Some scholars call it “The Lost Gospel of Q” - “Q” standing for Quelle, a German word for “source.” As early as 1838, a German scholar Christian Weisse at the University of Leipzig, developed proof that Matthew and Luke not only copied large parts of their gospels from the book of Mark, but also shared another source of material, primarily sayings of Jesus. This leads us to believe that there were copies of Q being circulated among early Christians. To date, no manuscripts of Q have been found. However, a group of scholars have dug through many layers of New Testament writings and have compiled what they believe is the original written sayings of Jesus that circulated between Jesus’ crucifixion and the writing of Matthew’s gospel about 80 C.E. You may want to consult the new book “The Lost Gospel of Q,” Dr. Marcus Borg, Consulting Editor, Mark Powelson and Ray Riegert are the editors. It is published by Ulysses Press, Berkeley, CA.

In the 180-year history of the two-document hypothesis, one idea has remained relatively unchanged – that the non-Markan source for Matthew's and Luke's gospels is a collection of sayings of Jesus. This article shows that this idea is based on faulty assumptions, many of which have been abandoned since the profile of Q was originally developed, and argues that Q was a narrative gospel similar to the canonical gospels but with a more heavy concentration on words of Jesus.

In his influential 1987 monograph, Kloppenborg identified three layers in the Sayings Gospel Q: the ‘formative stratum’ (or Q¹), the ‘main redaction’ (or Q²), and the ‘final recension’ (or Q³). He ascribed the cluster of sayings in Q 12:39–59 to the main redaction. Within this cluster appears the parable of the loyal and wise slave (Q 12:42–46). In my view, some portions of this parable actually originate with the formative stratum. The aim of the current article is to reconsider the redactional make-up of this parable by appealing to Kloppenborg’s own criteria for distinguishing between Q1 and Q2, including those of ‘characteristic forms’, ‘characteristic motifs’ and ‘implied audience’.

In his analysis, Kloppenborg (1987) identified a number of logia in the main redaction that were more proverbial than prophetic in nature. This article considers the possibility that these sayings originally formed part of Q¹, but were added to Q² by the main redactor during the redactional process. It also explores the possibility that the main redactor not only inserted and interpolated prophetic material into Q¹, but also transformed original wisdom sayings into prophetic Q² material.

and (3) how to account for the plurality of its wording in certain instances. The book is divided into three sections. Chapters 1 and 2 cover introductory concerns, chapters 3-6 focus on establishing the unity of Q, and chapters 7-11 examine the original wording of Q as a means to explaining the plurality of wording in the double tradition.

This article reflects on Kloppenborg's significant theory of the stratification of the Sayings Gospel Q. In The Formation of Q, Kloppenborg identifies three redactional layers in the Sayings Gospel Q: the "formative stratum" (or Q¹), the "main redaction" (or Q²), and the "final recension" (or Q³). He ascribes the saying about avoiding the courts in Q 12:58-59 (Matt 5:25-26 // Luke 12:58-59) to the main redaction. As an alternative, it is argued here that this logion belongs to the formative stratum. As part of arguing the latter case, the realistic socio-historical context of the logion in first-century Palestine will be considered with new and unprecedented interest.

Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 245-260 brill.com/nt © koninklijke brill nv, leiden, 2�14 |

The current article investigates the redactional history of a passage in the hypothetical Sayings Gospel Q. Kloppenborg originally placed Q 10:21-24 as a whole within the main redaction (or Q²). What is particularly troubling about the latter is that Kloppenborg depended on arguments drawn largely, if not exclusively, from the content and nature of verse 22 alone. Against this, the present effort will consider each of the three logia individually and on its own terms. In turn, each saying will be measured against Kloppenborg’s own criteria for distinguishing between the formative layer (or Q¹) and Q².

Mohr Siebeck, 2021

In this study, Llewellyn Howes analyzes the formative stratum (or earliest redactional layer) of the Sayings Gospel Q. He argues that certain texts in Q that have traditionally been excluded from its earliest layer should rather be included. The author also reconsiders the message of the formative stratum, featuring interesting and novel interpretations of certain Q texts that draw from advances in our knowledge of the logia and parables of Jesus, as well as the ancient Jewish world. The study argues that the formative stratum was a unified document before subsequent redactional layers were added, with interesting and important consequences for our understanding of the historical Jesus.