From Dave Black Online:
7:35 AM Over at the Alpha and Omega Blog, Jamin Hubner’s essay on “Q” is well worth your time. His conclusions?
Q is entirely unfounded. If such a source existed that the two gospels depended on, we would expect to see at least one manuscript, or one reference to it in early church tradition (there are 5,700+ manuscripts of the NT, 2,360+ of which are gospels). But there simply are none; there is no hard evidence whatsoever that Q even existed.
But then we read this:
It’s possible Mark was written last out of the three. But that’s highly unlikely – why would a compilation of accounts be the smallest account? Why would it exclude the majority of Jesus’ teaching? Why then does Matthew and Luke agree less than Mark agrees with Luke and Matthew? Why does Mark have a more awkward and primitive style? etc.