Malachi151

I've basically come to the conclusion that "Q" is a figment of people's imagination.

The breakdown of the layers is essentially just a matter of grouping like passages.

But why might we have differing types of passages in the Gospel material?

Well, for starters because the Gospels are written based on the Jewish scriptures, the "Old Testament". And the Old Testament is a source with different authors and with different messages and different themes and perspectives.

Why does the Q material "vary" in in ts nature? Because the Old Testament varies in its nature.

There are contradictory themes and messages in the Jewish scriptures, so any story that is written based on the Jewish scriptures is itself going to have such a situation.

I contend that any appearance of "stratification" in "Q" is just a reflection of variation within the true source material, the Jewish scriptures.

But that only deals with the supposed layers of "Q", but I don't think there is any "Q" at all.

I contend that what is called "Q" is material that comes from a longer version of the Gospel of Mark, and that the so-called layers are as I said, just a reflection of the use of the Jewish scriptures as a source. Likewise, I contend that one could analyze Mark using the same methodology as is used to analyze "Q" and come up with similar "layers".

So here is my test to prove that "Q" is really an expanded Mark, written using the same methodology as the current GMark, and that there is no separate source from Mark, all of which is based on the Jewish scritpures and the letters of Paul.

Use the same methodology that is used to find "layers" in "Q" and apply that to Mark. My hypothesis is that you will find the same types of "layers" in Mark as you find in so-called "Q".

The fact that these "layers" exist in the same manner in Mark and "Q" is indicative of the fact that both were written using the same methodology, and are based on the Jewish scriptures and letters of Paul, both of which contain a wide variety of ideas and contradictory messages. The variation in "Q" is due to the variation in the source, which is Jewish scritpures.

Zeichman

Given the distinct lack of deuteronomistic theology in Mark, as it IS the defining feature of Q's redaction, I doubt you'll get the results you claim. Likewise, sapiential material is hardly as prevalent as one finds in Q. Also, you've got an uphill battle if you're going to argue that Q knew Paul. I only know of Dale Allison who argued that PAUL knew Q, but to think the opposite... would go against everything that has been argued about Q.