Most scholars accept the likelihood of Q, although some don't (e.g. Mark Goodacre) and support for it has declined a lot since the heady days of the Jesus Seminar. There's a whole world of ideas about it's existence, content, origins etc etc. My point would be that those placing weight on it or a particular form of it are building their house on sand (which BTW is a Q saying). I mean it might be a thing, or not.
Certainly those going down the Q1 Q2 Q3 route are having a laugh.
Q could just as easily be a person who talked to M and L rather than a document, for example.
Certainly those going down the Q1 Q2 Q3 route are having a laugh.
Q could just as easily be a person who talked to M and L rather than a document, for example.
