Re: Q and Papias

> I have noticed a problem creeping into our discussions that I would like 
> to issue a caveat on, as I did towards the beginning of this thread.  It 
> is not the "Q Hypothesis", it is the 2 Source Hypothesis.  Discussing the 
> nature of Q stands alone, as does discussing the priority of Mark.  It is 
> only when we posit a Q and Marcan priority as the ultimate sources for 
> Matthew and Luke that we have the 2 Source Hypothesis, and it is this 
> conjunction of issues that some of us take exception to.  Rejecting this 
> explanation does not entail rejecting Q, or necessarily even in rejecting 
> Marcan priority.  We need to tread very carefully, and be very aware of 
> what we are discussing if this thread will bear any useful fruit.

> -Larry Swain

I do not understand the nuance you are trying to make here.  While
Markan priority and the existence of Q certainly can be treated
separately, Q makes little sense without Markan priority, especially
since the Q passages are generally defined as those portions of Matthew
and Luke which are not common to Mark.  Without Markan priority, one
could still propose documentary sources for Matthew annd Luke, but
such sources would not have anything in common with Q as it has been
proposed except that both would be _Quellen_.  

On the other hand, once Markan priority is assumed, the Q hypothesis
almost becomes a corollary.  I suppose on could argue that Q was
actually several documents instead of a single one, but as far as I
know, no one yet has proposed any criteria by which we could seperate
the documents from one another.  At the same time, many have made
arguments that Q does show evidence of literary unity.  I realize that
not all will find those arguments convincing, but without a
methodology that can provide a reasonable means of distinguishing
different source documents, I don't see what value that position
holds.  Furthermore, if someone did convincingly show that Q could be
seperated into separate documents, I would consider that a
refinement of the Q hypothesis, not a repudiation of it.

On the third hand, I know of no scholar who holds Mark and Q as the
ultimate sources for Matthew and Luke, if by ultimate you mean the
only sources.  Markan priority explains the material common to all
three gospels and Q explains material common to Matthew and Luke, but
absent in Mark.  Matthew and Luke each contain other material that
came from other sources, whether written or oral.  Nor do I know of
scholars who hold that Q and Mark are ultimate in the sense that they
have no sources behind them.

What am I missing?  What do you mean by rejecting the two document
hypothesis as the ultimate solution?  What is it about the conjunction
of Markan priority and Q that you take issue to?

Stan Anderson
The Claremont Graduate School
Institute for Antiquity and Christianity