This seems to have degenerated into a dispute which is on one level about a very small difference of opinion.
I thought you were going! I won't address your post in the order you wrote it, because I find your web citation most interesting. It shows that one can speculate and come up with dozens of different theories. Well done.
On a side note I like how it elevates certain people by saying
"Leading scholars: Christian Hermann Weisse (1838), Paul Wernle (1899), Burnett Hillman Streeter (1924); cf. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann (1863)."http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/index.html
I prefer the Church Fathers.
Oh, and another side note, in fairness your cite mentions my own; http://ntgateway.com/Q/
, which you reject out of hand.
Into this vibrant Christian world; of Christians discussing and teaching I would accept that there was interaction.
I know no source that mentions Q. I doubt it exists. When we talk about Q we tend to talk about a singular source, most suggest it was written; hence (so the proponents suggest) the consistency in the 'copying' from it. Marcan priority is not the same as a "Q" source.
I have stated that they may have drawn upon each other, this to me is not a problem when people corroborate. I cite Luke in the post above. But that is different from the way those support the Q-hypothesis, who use it to suggest that they were mere copyists (with little bits of liberal re-workings thrown in; to undermine the 'inspiring' nature of the Gospels). Inseparable from this is we would be encouraging speculations as to who wrote "Q"? Why it never surfaced of its own? (a great boon for Gnostics who love to believe that information was hidden). And so forth.
You are pushing harder than is justified for the non-existence of anything that could be called "Q"; I argue that there's too much evidence in the text and too much ambiguity in the eternal testimonies to make such a strong claim.
Your own source site suggests a plethora of different and competing theories all available from the same evidence.
We are both arguing against the position that one can deduce some "theology of Q". I said that in the very first long post, and it's about time you stopped trying to saddle me with that error. On the other hand, I think the Markan priority position explains the similarities and differences between the synoptics better than any other theory-- excepting the shared Matthean-Lukan material. It is possible this latter material-- the Q-- originates in oral transmission rather than representing a distinct written document.
The more I think about your "church father" argument, the less convincing it becomes. For example, I look at the 1st Epistle of Clement, and I see that it is liberally paved with quotations from the OT and passages that can be construed as quotations from the New. The problem is, nowhere does Clement tell where any of them come from; indeed, many "quotations" are not identified as such, so that it is impossible to determine whether he (for example) quotes a Pauline letter from the actual text or not.
I note that buried in your text here a reference to 'oral transmission', or Traditionhypothese
. I will deal with that later on
The more I think about your counter-argument the more convinced I am that you're not aware about the nature of the transmission of knowledge in the early church. All the teachings of Christ were given to the Apostles at Pentecost.
You mention Clement. No where does Clement have to be quoting an earlier gospel. I mentioned something in a similar light in a post above - which you must have missed, regarding Luke. I accept that the teachings of Christ were held 'in common' as it were amongst all the Apostles. There is no need for reliance on an earlier written source by an unknown writer.
It is a part of Orthodox (and Catholic) belief that not all that was transmitted was written down. The last of the Gospels notes this....
John 21:25 Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.
Paul gives a quotation from Jesus that was handed down orally to him: "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). This saying is not recorded in the Gospels and must have been passed on to Paul. And therefore Paul himself uses tradition as a guide for teaching. This does not make Paul a 'copyist'. Nor does it suggest a super-copy/source with which all the authors relied upon.
Paul also quotes from other non-Biblical sources, such as this early hymn...
Ephesians 5:14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: "Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you."
He says that is authority to teach comes from the lord (1 Thess. 4:2). As an Orthodox Christian I believe that the Lord inspired the writers of the Gospels. The Q argument is more that they were copyists, rather than inspired. You want to argue against this, that's good for you. But it begs the question that any of the authors were witnesses. A flow on from this is that their writings are then undermined... one could then speculate which writings they 'made up' (having not been witnesses). Another question that would be left is (and I think I've mentioned this earlier) is "Why was this source Gospel not kept?" What teachings did it contain that were suppressed.
Back to the oral tradition. The proponents of Q suggest that there must have been a single source shared by various authors. They don't deal with or Traditionhypothese
, as your own site says.