Re: _The Formation of Q_

Greg Carey (
Mon, 26 Aug 1996 09:21:12 -0500 (CDT)

Thanks to Stephen Carlson for his reply to my earlier post, ESPECIALLY his
clarification of Kloppenborg's position over against Mack's. (I had focused on
Mack, which I knew better, saying "not so much Kloppenborrg's version as

It appears that Stephen and I are not that far apart regarding the sorts of
distinctions one might make within documents. I suggested:

>>More constructively, what we MIGHT be able to do is trace diverse and
conflicting concerns as they are reflected in Q, then ask how these concerns
might have fit into what we know of early Christianity as a new religious
movement (with reference to sociology). The results WOULD AND SHOULD
necessarily be vague, much less satisfying than Kloppenborg and Mack offer, but
also more sane.<<

(I should have omitted Kloppenborg's name here?)

Stephen replied:

>>I've read quite a few Supreme Court cases and I'm willing to bet that
many of the opinions have a complex literary history, starting with
the winning laywer's brief that is converted into the law clerk's
first draft which was edited and reworked by the justice and modified
after comments.<<

Chances are good that we can identify the tensions within the cases. The
reconstructions of their history would be much more tenuous, however. Wouldn't
they? Or would Stephen suggest more specificity than I?

Greg Carey
Department of Religious Studies
Rhodes College
Memphis, TN 38112 USA