Q and Papias

> I would take issue with the "?nearly all" part.  There is a large chunch of 
> Mark (if memory serves me, at least two chapters using our modern system of
> dividing the text) that Luke does not have (note I did not say omits).  On the
> other hand, there is a very large section (like about 121 chapters) of Luke
> tht are not reflected much elsewhere.  Those two features of the text as it is
> deal a death blow, IMHO, to the idea that Luke copied Mark and shared Q with
> Matthew.  That is just too great a divergence for me to see this two-source
> hypothesis working.  I know others have answers for these phenomena, but they
> require more ancillary hypotheses, which make the Two-SOurce hypothesis more 
> suspect in my eyes.  

Sorry about neglecting to mention Luke's great omission.  I can
understand how it makes some doubt Markan priority.  On the other hand
I don't really understand why Luke having material that is not in
Matthew or Mark is any hindrance to the 2 source hypothesis.  No one
ever said that Mark and Q were the _only_ sources available.  They are
just two sources that some believe can be established with a
reasonable degree of certainty.  How does the fact that Luke has
material not from the two hypothesized sources make the hypothesis any

Stan Anderson
The Claremont Graduate School
Institute for Antiquity and Christianity