KLOPPENBORG’S STRATIFICATION OF strongQstrong AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR.pdfVIP

JETS 46/2 (June 2003) 217–32 KLOPPENBORG’S STRATIFICATION OF Q AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE FOR HISTORICAL JESUS STUDIES dennis ingolfsland* i. introduction When John Kloppenborg (now John Kloppenborg Verbin) wrote The For- mation of Q in 1987, it was impossible to foresee that this book would be- come a foundational study for some of the more radical presentations of Jesus as a non-apocalyptic Jewish Cynic. 1 Although Kloppenborg distances himself from the Jewish Cynic thesis, his work has been used not only to support that thesis but to revise Christian origins.2 For example, Ron Cam- eron, discussing Kloppenborg’s work says that “Q demonstrates that there is no need to appeal to the crucified and risen Christ in order to imagine the origins of Christianity.”3 Kloppenborg himself believes that his hypothesis supports the idea that the Q community had a soteriology fundamentally different than the Pauline soteriology. Keylock summarizes the issue this way: “For Kloppenborg, Q represents a form of Christianity in Galilee that was ignorant of the Pauline tradition, [and] knew nothing of Jesus’ atoning death and resurrection. . . .”4 Considering the implications of Kloppenborg’s hypothesis for the his- torical study of Jesus, this article will provide an analysis of Kloppenborg’s thesis as stated primarily in his book, The Formation of Q,5 but also with reference to his later work, Excavating Q , published in 2000. 6 ii. the stratification of q in a nutshell Agreeing with Bultmann that Q was “a transitional stage between the un-messianic preaching of Jesus and the fully self-conscious kerygma of the Hellenistic churches,” 7 Kloppenborg insists that there are only two ways * Dennis Ingolfsland is associate professor of Bible at Crown College, 6425 County Road 30, St. Bonifacius, Minnesota 55375-9001. 1 Most nota