Sometimes it is illuminating to read the actual “ancient” sources such as this fragment about the obscure Bishop Papias in the writings of Irenaeus.
15 And the presbyter would say this: Mark, who had indeed been Peter’s interpreter, accurately wrote as much as he remembered, yet not in order, about that which was either said or did by the Lord. For he neither heard the Lord nor followed him, but later, as I said, Peter, who would make the teachings anecdotally but not exactly an arrangement of the Lord’s reports, so that Mark did not fail by writing certain things as he recalled. For he had one purpose, not to omit what he heard or falsify them.
What the above suggests to me is the conclusion I am coming to as I peruse the various and voluminous reflections of the corps of scholars who now make it their business to parse ancient Christian texts and see what they tell us about Jesus.
This quote squares with the general idea that memory, while fallible, functioned almost from the beginning as the transmission mode. If a Q sayings-text emerged, it does not mean that those who formed a community based on the teachings of Jesus did not remember and respond to other elements of Jesus’s story.
In other words, it does not mean that that Jesus did not die in some way at the hands of a mob and state and religious authorities. Or that people did not believe very early that he had overcome death, whether as a vindication of his obsdient life or otherwise.
What is contained as the texts evolve is the growth of what I have called creedal messianism. Even so, Jesus’s radical iconoclasm could not be suppressed in the formation of our canon.