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 
if interested.

Larry Swain
Parmly Billings Library