Re: Q and Papias
> 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.
Not quite. Q is a logia collection which Matt and Lk both use. It was
probably much larger, but all we are able to reconstruct with any
certainty is the material Matt and Lk share. As a logia collection in
the early church, it makes a whole lot of sense and is historically
probable, without so much as a reference to the 2 Source Problem. Let me
extrapolate. Take for example J. M. Rist, On the INdependence of Matthew
and Mark, Cambridge, 1978. From the title you can guess that the whole
gist of the book is to argue that Matthew and Mark are independent of one
another. Rather Rist argues they are dependent on the same sources. In
this model we would have a logia source-that is Q. If Matthew and Mark
are independent we still have a Q which is important for the theory to
stand, but itrejects entirly the 2 Source solution. Or for that matter
take any of the multiple source theories, Q fits in quite nicely as one
of the multiple sources. So, I reiterate. Discussion of a logia
collection we call Q is a vital part of the 2 Source Hypothesis.
However, other reconstructions of the formation of the gospels and
reconstructions of early Christian history may posit Q or a Q like
document and still reject the 2 Source Hypothesis. Thus, in this
discussion we should be clear that in questioning 2 Source it does not
entail a rejection of Q. Does that help you understand the nuance or
have I just muddied things more?
> 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.
Please, I may be demonstrating my ignorance in these posts, I am not
quite that ignorant, however. To accept the misnamed 2 Source H. in its
most simply form requires one to accept at least 4 sources: Q, Mark, M,
and L. By ultimate source I simply mean that we really don't ask
ourselves where Q or Mark came from-they are the end of the road, that is
they are ultimate, like the ultimate syllable is the last.
Nor do I know of
> scholars who hold that Q and Mark are ultimate in the sense that they
> have no sources behind them.
MMM, nor do I on the one hand. On the other I have not anyone who
attempts to deal with the sources behind them either, other than in very
sketchy fashion-as if to say, they are there, but we don't know what they
are or how to recover 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?
What I mean is that we have a too facile acceptance of the 2 Source
Hypothesis. For many in the field, as some on this list have
demonstrated, we begin with the conclusion and then work our way
backward. We engage in circular reasoning allowing the conclusion to
become part of the argument. For example the discussion of style in Mark
is said that the only way to explain it is if it came first-which assumes
the 2 Source at the outset, assumes that bad Greek means earlier work,
ignores the problems with Marcan priority entirly. Farmer Griesbach have
a nice tidy answer to the Greek question, which is guilty of the same
fault. I distrust evidence that can be read too many ways to be prove
too many theories.
My basic objections is that there are simply too many problems with
either of the major theories currently on the boards. Most of the hole
plugging is just that-plugging up holes. I don't think that the 2 SOUrce
theory takes into account the diversity, the cross breeding, the
complexity of early CHristianity in the Hellenisitic world-it is too
simplistic to be taken seriously. I can provide details of my objections
Parmly Billings Library