What were Jesus and early Christians like?

[TimOneill]

Wrong. We know that gMark was using at least one original source, now lost.

Please don't start with the Q nonsense.

The "Q nonsense" that's accepted by most textual critics?

It's the tachyon of biblical apologetics.

Apologists actually tend to reject the whole idea of Q. They don't like the idea of a text that contained "the Word of God" but which God didn't bother to preserve - that disturbs them. I've never been able to work out why Mythers et al also don't like the idea. It's just yet another thing that Mythers and fundamentalists have in common.

It's never been seen. Never been measured. But some people claim it exists.

It does exist. It's right there in the texts. Note that I used the term "the Q material". That's the stuff that is not in gMark but is in both gMatt and gLuke. And at least some of it can be shown, textually, to have come from a now lost text used by both as a source. Whether all of it comes from common textual material or whether it comes from a single common text or several are other questions. But the Q material is there and it indicates at least one other textual strand, possibly more.

Let me know when you find Q. Then I'll take a look at it.

Easily done - here you are: The Q Material.