Kata Markon

[RHS <diadem AT netaus.net.au>]

Re: Q
I find myself somewhat puzzled at this whole Q business.
In the first place, Q is a scholars' construct. As I remember, it
started with some German scholars back in the 18th century.
Here was a group of post-industrial western scholars from a
written/literary based society, trying to solve what they saw as a
problem in a world of an oral/hearing based society. They took
themselves back to the first century, looking for written sources for
the gospels.
One of their solutions to the problem, as they saw it, of divergent
materials in the gospels, was to invent a written source. They called it
'Q'. There was no evidence that such a source existed. But it helped
them solve a problem that they imposed on this first century oral
tradition world.
What was in this Q?
They decided that any sayings that were common to Matthew and Luke but
not in Mark and John, must be only and all from Q. This completely
excluded the possibility that Mark knew of this source and used some of
it in his gospel.
>From then on, it seems to me, western scholars have assumed the truth of
this theory. They assumed that there was a Q and that it consisted of
material common to Matthew and Luke but not in Mark or John.
Then, other scholars wanted an 'M' source: things in Matthew but not in
Mark or Q; and an 'L' source: things in Luke but not in Mark or Q.
Now you have people asking, 'Why did Mark not use anything from Q?' 'Why
did John not use anything from Q?'
See my dilemma? This whole thing is a circular argument.
To my mind, the proper question is, 'Why did Matthew not use some
material found in Mark?' 'Why did Luke not use some material not found
in Mark?' This assumes, of course, that they had a copy of Mark in front
of them. There is no certain evidence for that.
The fact that Matthew and Luke use some of the same things not found in
Mark does not necessarily mean that they used the same source. To my
mind, a better way of looking at the synoptic problem as it relates to
Mark is to try and identify the aims and target audience of each gospel
and work from there to the inclusion/exclusion of Markan materials.
It is sometimes the case that a particular 'Q' saying in Matthew has a
completely different context and purpose when used in Luke.
Anyway, I'm just sharing my belief that none of the source theories I
have studied yet gives any real clue as to the actual 'written' source
of the materials used in each gospel.
I've heard ancient Greek oral traditions from different parts of
present-day Greece, telling the same story in very different ways. I
know that none of our 'written source theories' can offer any
satisfactory explanation of those differences. Just look at the stories
of the gods and heroes!
Ross Saunders from DownUnder