Tell me why I should think the Q Gospel is real

There's pretty obviously some source of quotes due to commonalities in the synoptics outside of known texts.

I've just seen a picture related to it and some guy just mentioned it, so I'm sure it's real.

Can I get a quick rundown on what the hell the Q Gospel is and why you are skeptical

>>9933981
It's just a proposed solution to the synoptic problem. The existence of sayings gospels like the Gospel of Thomas shows that non-narrative gospels did exist. One of the claimed strengths is that it doesn't require Matthew or Luke to depend on each other, so there isn't a need to explain their many differences as they would have been written independently. A weakness is that there's no evidence for a unified document that contained all the sayings common to Luke-Matthew but not Mark, but of course it might simply have been lost.

>>9934012
There are hypotheses that Matthew took them from Luke or vice versa. I think a small minority of scholars see Q as a tradition of transmitted sayings rather than its own book.

File: Relationship_between_synoptic_gospels.png (106KB, 952x1237px) Image search: [Google]

106KB, 952x1237px

>>9934022
Q is the hypothetical source of the "double tradition", seen here, passages which are shared between Matthew and Luke but not the other gospels.

>>9934022
the verbal agreement between Matthew and Luke is so close in some parts of the double tradition that the most reasonable explanation for this agreement is common dependence on a written source or sources. Even if Matthew and Luke are independent (see Markan priority), the Q hypothesis states that they used a common document. Arguments for Q being a written document include:

>Sometimes the exactness in wording is striking, for example, Matthew 6:24 = Luke 16:13 (27 and 28 Greek words respectively); Matthew 7:7–8 = Luke 11:9–10 (24 Greek words each).
>There is sometimes commonality in order between the two, for example the Sermon on the Plain and Sermon on the Mount.
>The presence of doublets, where Matthew and Luke sometimes each present two versions of a similar saying but in different context, only one of those versions appearing in Mark. Doublets may be considered a sign of two written sources, i.e., Mark and Q.
>Luke mentions that he knows of other written sources of Jesus' life, and that he has investigated in order to gather the most information