Q is sheer speculation, and several scholars do not a correct theory make.

Q is a theory based on the evidence found in the Gospels. It is a way of describing what appears to have happened, and it is certainly a concept shared by more than “several scholars.” This is taught in conservative and liberal seminaries and bible colleges alike. This is not controversial in major venues. I’m uncertain as to why you would object to it so strongly.

One big difference that last man on earth doesn’t acknowledge is that the NT accounts, even if borrowing from one another, were not done for the purposes of turning a quick buck in an industry and enriching the authors. These people were signing their own death warrants. Completely different from the motivations of these pseudo-Christian celebs. Q is sheer speculation, and several scholars do not a correct theory make. I’ve been in the academic world for 16 years, don’t kid a kidder. Agreed, a lot of stuff is neatly packaged for the pews; my New Testament professor said “The Bible did not fall from heaven in a glad bag.” But the material neatly packaged for the consumption of the average skeptic is some of the most anti-intellectual tripe I’ve ever read and the lock step views many tend to have, coupled with the cheap gratuitous shots such as LMOE gave above, give the most knavish sort of KJV-only closed minds quite a run for their money. By the way, I am not a religious academic and have never taken a single class from a sectarian school, I teach law and fraud–I have a heightened BS meter, LMOE causes mine to smoke.

Like really talentless, plagiarized rock songs.

Ok. First, there is no “common source document.” All we have is a lot

of
speculation. Two very good critiques are:

Farmer, W. R. (1976). The Synoptic problem ; a critical analysis. Dillsboro, N.C.,: Western North Carolina Press

and the less well known:

Palmer, H. (1968). The logic of Gospel criticism : an account of the methods and arguments used by textual, documentary, source, and form critics of the New Testament. London, Melbourne [etc.]
New York: Macmillan;
St. Martin’s P.

Palmer’s work is devastating, but has been ignored by most Biblical scholars. From a historians viewpoint Biblical criticism falls far short of its claims. Interestingly, Farmer argues for a political bias in a later article and his:

Farmer, W. R. (1994). The gospel of Jesus : the pastoral relevance of the synoptic problem (1st ed.). Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press.

His argument is that initially the idea of “Q” was rejected by German scholars, until Chancellor Otto von Bismarck started to appoint those who upheld the position. This was done as part of his attack on Roman Catholicism and had little to do with schoalrship. More recently some scholars have pointed out the racism and social construction of Biblical criticism. See:

Davies, A. T. (1988). Infected Christianity : a study of modern racism. Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Kelley, S. (2002). Racializing Jesus : race, ideology, and the formation of modern biblical scholarship. London ; New York: Routledge.

So I remain very sceptical. If a historian tried this sort of thing in any other context they would not be taken very seriously. Imagined documents are not documents.

I think a good starting point would be googling “Q Gospel”. Or if you can find a book, “The Gospels: the Annotated Scholar’s Version” (editor Robert Miller) which shows side by side the similarities between two gospels, and why several scholars believe that there was a ‘source’ or quelle document that has since been lost.

I should get a new copy of it too. Mine is from the 90s somewhere, and it has since been updated with new Q stuff.

Ok. First, there is no “common source document.” All we have is a lot

of
speculation. Two very good critiques are:

Farmer, W. R. (1976). The Synoptic problem ; a critical analysis. Dillsboro, N.C.,: Western North Carolina Press

and the less well known:

Palmer, H. (1968). The logic of Gospel criticism : an account of the methods and arguments used by textual, documentary, source, and form critics of the New Testament. London, Melbourne [etc.]
New York: Macmillan;
St. Martin’s P.

Palmer’s work is devastating, but has been ignored by most Biblical scholars. From a historians viewpoint Biblical criticism falls far short of its claims. Interestingly, Farmer argues for a political bias in a later article and his:

Farmer, W. R. (1994). The gospel of Jesus : the pastoral relevance of the synoptic problem (1st ed.). Louisville, Ky.: Westminster/John Knox Press.

His argument is that initially the idea of “Q” was rejected by German scholars, until Chancellor Otto von Bismarck started to appoint those who upheld the position. This was done as part of his attack on Roman Catholicism and had little to do with schoalrship. More recently some scholars have pointed out the racism and social construction of Biblical criticism. See:

Davies, A. T. (1988). Infected Christianity : a study of modern racism. Kingston, Ont.: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

Kelley, S. (2002). Racializing Jesus : race, ideology, and the formation of modern biblical scholarship. London ; New York: Routledge.

So I remain very sceptical. If a historian tried this sort of thing in any other context they would not be taken very seriously. Imagined documents are not documents.

Happens all the time.

What, Hillary had an affair with Monica Lewinsky as well? That would be news.