Demonstrating Q (Quelle) was a document and "Luke" did not know gMatthew.

[Ben C. Smith]

So you admit it could come from Q. And I showed in my OP that the Q source document existed and "Luke" did not know about gMatthew.

Of course it could come from Q. It could also come from Matthew. I am not questioning what is possible; I am questioning whether you have a good argument for Q here, and I am not sure that you do. If you have to prove by other means that the Q source existed, then this argument is no longer an argument for Q.

[Ben C. Smith]

Something has to be clarified here. Q is only "Q" if Q is nothing more than a sayings document, that existed before Mark. If you are talking about something that was derived from Mark, then that cannot be Q.

This is flat incorrect. Whether Q predates or postdates Mark, along with its exact relationship to Mark, has never been part of the definition of Q.

You can change the definition of Q for your own purposes, but you need to know that this is what you are doing. You are not reflecting the existing, widespread definition of Q.

[rgprice]

Something has to be clarified here. Q is only "Q" if Q is nothing more than a sayings document, that existed before Mark. If you are talking about something that was derived from Mark, then that cannot be Q.

This is flat incorrect. Whether Q predates or postdates Mark, along with its exact relationship to Mark, has never been part of the definition of Q.

You can change the definition of Q for your own purposes, but you need to know that this is what you are doing. You are not reflecting the existing, widespread definition of Q.

Ok, not necessarily "predates", I shouldn't have said that, but that is independent from.

If Q isn't independent from Mark then it defeats the whole point of the original hypothesis.

[Ben C. Smith]

Something has to be clarified here. Q is only "Q" if Q is nothing more than a sayings document, that existed before Mark. If you are talking about something that was derived from Mark, then that cannot be Q.

This is flat incorrect. Whether Q predates or postdates Mark, along with its exact relationship to Mark, has never been part of the definition of Q.

You can change the definition of Q for your own purposes, but you need to know that this is what you are doing. You are not reflecting the existing, widespread definition of Q.

Ok, not necessarily "predates", I shouldn't have said that, but that is independent from.

If Q isn't independent from Mark then it defeats the whole point of the original hypothesis.

Again, this is not true. The point of the original hypothesis was to explain how Luke could not have known our gospel of Matthew (or vice versa) while simultaneously reproducing so much of what Matthew contains. It had nothing to do with the relationship of Q to Mark.

ETA: In 1905, Wellhausen complained that the literary relationship of Mark to Q had not really even been investigated up to that point. And the Two-Source Theory had, by that date, already been in circulation for more than 60 years and fairly popular for almost 40!

[rgprice]

Again, this is not true. The point of the original hypothesis was to explain how Luke could not have known our gospel of Matthew while simultaneously reproducing so much of what Matthew contains. It had nothing to do with the relationship of Q to Mark.

I would challenge that. Of course the relation to Mark matters. This is the standard diagram of the 2DH:



Agreed? Mark and Q are independent. There is a reason that it is not represented as:



The diagram above has entirely different implications than the 2DH.

Arguably, talk about "Mark-Q" overlaps would require the following:



The prospect of Mark-Q overlaps necessitates that Q precede Mark, but if you don't argue for Mark-Q overlaps then its true that Q doesn't have to precede Mark. Yet, if Q is derived from Mark, then we're talking about something entirely different from the 2DH. In fact, if Q is derived from Mark then Matthew and Luke need not have used Mark at all and at that point Q is just another Gospel that was derived from Mark. Q is just an expansion of Mark if Q is derived from Mark. There is no 2DH at that point.

[Ben C. Smith]

Again, this is not true. The point of the original hypothesis was to explain how Luke could not have known our gospel of Matthew while simultaneously reproducing so much of what Matthew contains. It had nothing to do with the relationship of Q to Mark.

I would challenge that.

You would be wrong. In 1905, Wellhausen complained that the literary relationship of Mark to Q had not really even been investigated up to that point. And the Two-Source Theory had, by that date, already been in circulation for more than 60 years and fairly popular for about 40. Clearly, the relationship of Mark to Q had nothing to do with the original formulation of the Q hypothesis. It was all about Matthew and Luke.

[Ben C. Smith]

Yet, if Q is derived from Mark, then we're talking about something entirely different from the 2DH. In fact, if Q is derived from Mark then Matthew and Luke need not have used Mark at all and at that point Q is just another Gospel that was derived from Mark. Q is just an expansion of Mark if Q is derived from Mark. There is no 2DH at that point.

You are very confused on this point. Again, you are free to redefine your terms however you see fit, but you are not reflecting the history or the usual definitions involved in debates over the synoptic problem.

[Bernard Muller]

to rgprice and Ben,

Something has to be clarified here. Q is only "Q" if Q is nothing more than a sayings document, that existed before Mark. If you are talking about something that was derived from Mark, then that cannot be Q.

That's your definition, not mine.
If before Mark, common material appearing in sayings of both gospels are considered Q , then why after (and derived from) Mark, common elements appearing in sayings of both gospels would not be considered Q?

The conventional definition for Q is like "Common material used by "gMatthew" and "gLuke" but not found in gMark."
That would cover also: (after (and derived from) Mark), common material used in both gospels.
And what would prevent additions to be done after gMark was known?

I was only guilty to be specific about the definition of Q.
According to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source:

This two-source hypothesis speculates that Matthew borrowed from both Mark and Q. For most scholars, Q accounts for what Matthew and Luke share—sometimes in exactly the same words—but that are absent in Mark. Examples are the Devil's three temptations of Jesus, the Beatitudes, the Lord's Prayer, and many individual sayings.

Well, the preambles of the Devil's three temptations shows that both "Luke" and "Matthew" were aware of gMark.
And the Lord's prayer also draws from gMark.

to rgprice: Q is not only about sayings but also includes narratives.

Cordially, Bernard

[Ben C. Smith]

This is the standard diagram of the 2DH:

Yes, that is true. But it is more that the (non)relationship between Mark and Q is left unexpressed and/or assumed rather than argued:

However, as soon as you allow for Mark and Q to have overlapped, then there has to be a mechanism to allow for this, and there are four possibilities:

1. the author(s) of Q knew Mark;
2. aMark knew Q;
3. aMark and the author(s) of Q both used an earlier hypothetical source; or
4. the text came from a common oral tradition that both aMark and the author(s) of Q knew.

None of these possibilities are really satisfactory. The first two imply a direct dependency link between Mark and Q that is not made explicit in the Mark-Q theory, and with such a link in place the whole rationale for Q as a source independent of Mark is undermined. The third explanation adds a second hypothetical source behind the original hypothetical source (Q), and as this violates the principle of Occams's (or Ockam's) Razor that "Entities are not to be multiplied beyond necessity" it can be dismissed forthwith. The final explanation, 'a common oral tradition,' can be neither proved nor disproved, and is not much more than a ‘Get Out of Jail Free’ card.

Link.

The Mark-Q Theory simply does not specify, on its own, whether Mark knew Q, Q knew Mark, or neither knew the other, which is why 40+ years could pass by without the question even really having been addressed. Scholars of course may have strong opinions on the matter, but they do not deny that their intellectual opponents are still talking about a Q document.

[rgprice]

You would be wrong. In 1905, Wellhausen complained that the literary relationship of Mark to Q had not really even been investigated up to that point. And the Two-Source Theory had, by that date, already been in circulation for more than 60 years and fairly popular for about 40. Clearly, the relationship of Mark to Q had nothing to do with the original formulation of the Q hypothesis. It was all about Matthew and Luke.

To say that the relationship of Mark to Q never had anything to do with the Q hypothesis is very misleading. Obviously Q contains material not found in Mark. By that very statement we have defined a relationship to Mark.

You are very confused on this point. Again, you are free to redefine your terms however you see fit, but you are not reflecting the history or the usual definitions involved in debates over the synoptic problem.

At its core, the 2DH proposes that two people independently integrated two separate sources.

If you talk about Q being derived from Mark, then you are no longer talking about two people independently integrating two sources. At that point, one person expanded mark and two people coped from them in different ways.

Here not a single proposal has Q being derived from Mark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_ ... on_to_Mark

Q is independent of Mark in every proposal. Show me somewhere that describes Q as a document derived from Mark?

Edit: From your linked material:

None of these possibilities are really satisfactory. The first two imply a direct dependency link between Mark and Q that is not made explicit in the Mark-Q theory, and with such a link in place the whole rationale for Q as a source independent of Mark is undermined.

To say the least...

To say that the traditional 2DH diagram can have an unstated link between Mark and Q is absurd. That's an entirely different set of relations that changes every aspect of the whole theory. It's like saying I have a model of the solar system with the earth in the middle, but in a hidden way you can picture it with sun in the middle, same thing... No... its not.