This would explain why Mark was left intact, i.e. without Q, and preserved with Matthew (i.e. Mark + Q). While *Ev was destroyed and the only survived version of *Ev was Luke (*Ev + Q).
*Ev was anti-YHWH. The destruction was necessary.
Mark was too much timidely pro-YHWH: that feature saved it.
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Thu Feb 29, 2024 6:21 amI would add that I think it was originally written in German
Don't be too hard on them. They simply couldn't imagine that Luke was truly capable of writing a different genealogy and a birth story with so many contradictions to Matthew. They were just in good faith and had deep trust in their "Luke the physician".
"Q" was never independent of Mark. There are too many Markisms like talking about the scribes and Pharisees, or the Son of Man, too many parables, too many places where it fits too neatly into the narrative, etc. The idea that the parables are independent and "came from Jesus" is also absurd. The Markan parables are all clearly created by the author of the narrative and serve as plot devices in the narrative. The idea for these parables comes from scriptural references to Ezekiel. They have a distinctive character. The expansion of the parables in "Q" is building on themes and ideas that originated in "Mark". "Q" is just the expansion of Mark and then Matthew's copying from that expanded narrative (proto-Luke).