Biblica_1:Layout 1 21-11-2011 12:59 Pagina 394 394 SIMON J. JOSEPH also questions the claim that there was any unified collection of sayings prior to this redaction as well as the late dating to the most explicitly no- mistic elements in Q. It may be “misleading” to think of Q (or even Q1) as sapiential and preferable to give “methodological priority” to Q in its “final” form. Critics have not always engaged the literary-critical aspects of Kloppenborg’s argument, which does not depend on any presumed (in)compatibility between wisdom and apocalyptic, but rather “from an analysis of the actual literary deployment of Q sayings” . More- over, Kloppenborg has consistently maintained that literary analysis is “not convertible with tradition history” 12. A fair evaluation of this hypothesis, therefore, would require careful analysis of the alleged “stratigraphic markers” that identify the seams and strata of Q. This has been done elsewhere 13. There are reasonably persuasive alterna- tive arguments to positing complex redaction-histories that stratify traditions and social histories. Q draws on sapiential, prophetic, eschatological and apocalyptic perspectives because these were interrelated components of the Jew- ish tradition from which it emerged. There is nothing incompatible about wisdom and apocalyptic traditions being present in a single text. Q and 4QInstruction appear to belong to a “wisdom trajectory” in the late Second Temple period. Matthew Goff identifies 4QIn- struction, like Q, as a sapiential text with an apocalyptic worldview”. 4QInstruction illustrates that sapiential and apocalyptic material can co-exist in the same text 14. First-century Judaism was influenced by eschatological and apocalyptic orientations. Constructing a non-es- chatological, non-apocalyptic Jesus risks misrepresenting first-cen- tury Judaism, the Jesus movement and the historical Jesus. There are close relationships between wisdom as worldly knowledge and wisdom as revealed knowledge. Wisdom and apocalyptic, as distinct categories, have blurred boundaries that should not be over-reified for ideological purposes. George Nickelsburg warns that “our cate- 12 J.S. KLOPPENBORG VERBIN, Excavating Q. The History and Setting of the Sayings Gospel (Edinburgh, 2000) 145, n. 61; KLOPPENBORG, The Formation of Q, 245. 13 A. KIRK, The Composition of the Sayings Source. Genre, Synchrony, and Wisdom Redaction in Q (NTSup 91; Leiden 1998) 26. 14 M.J. GOFF, “Discerning Trajectories: 4QInstruction and the Sapiential Background of the Sayings Source Q”, JBL 124 (2005) 659, 669; The Worldly and Heavenly Wisdom of 4QInstruction (STDJ 50; Leiden 2003) 216, 218.