Upon reflecting on my previous post, and after reading Steven's comments I think it is necessary to consider my question about Q a little further. Steven's opinion is that there has to be some written element to Q, which he sites good evidence for. I previously suggested that Q is an oral source. Considering Steven's opinion and my own suggestion, I am led to wonder if the concept of Q is flexible enough to answer the question of textual origination. Let me explain.
First, when looking at the Synoptics, we see 3 different gospels with some similarities, and as Steven pointed out, some more obvious than others. If I am correct about Q, it serves as an explanation of how these similarities got into 3 different gospels. Hypothetically, Q is a collection of recorded sayings that originated before any of the 3 Synoptics. It seems for many scholars that this is an easy enough explanation.
I will now turn to Mark to explain why this is much more complex than it seems. First of all, Mark seems to be a fantastic storyteller who is able to embrace a number of audiences. At this point I am forced to look at Mark's gospel as something flowing from a storyteller's mouth into the listener's ears rather than from an author's pen into a reader's eyes. Bear with me. It is widely accepted that Mark is the earliest gospel, and in most theories used only Q as its source as well as being a source along with Q for Matthew and Luke. Again, my problem, we are talking about a storyteller rather than an author. If Mark is a storyteller it is plausible that his story woud originate from oral tradition. This is what led me to suggest an oral version of Q. When Luke and Matthew are brought into the picture, it is harder for an oral Q theory to hold up as Steven has pointed out. However, it does not cause oral Q to concede to written Q, and thus my original question returns. Is Q enough?
Most scholars want a written Q or an oral Q. One or the other. Along with this, most scholars want one source and they want to call it Q (although some scholars see no reason for any original source). I don't think Q is enough. To me, there has to be more. For example, Greco-Roman literature and culture should be considered a source used at least by Mark. I think Q has created a road block for further consideration. For most Q stands as a good explanation and the academy has spent years trying to figure out what is in Q and what Q really is when we have a considerable amount of other concrete, plausible sources that deserve our attention.
