One of my interests, aside from the quirks of Anglicanism, is the question of the composition of the gospels. I have a leaning towards the theory that the parallels between Matthew and Luke, where neither follows Mark, is due to Luke copying Matthew, rather than each drawing on a common source, nicknamed by scholars as Q. (Q stands for Quelle, or source, not for Quirk)!
But Q might stand for Quirk in some theorising about Q. Recently I received a book notice as follows:
"Rethinking the Gospel Sources, Volume 2: The Unity and Plurality of Q by Delbert Burkett
This work examines three disputed issues in the study of Q, the hypothetical source common to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke: its existence; its unity as a document; and the plurality of its wording. It evaluates the arguments for and against the existence of Q and concludes that some form of the Q hypothesis is necessary. It presents new evidence that most of the Q material existed as a single written source unified by recurring features of style and theme. Finally, it argues that differences between Matthew and Luke in the wording of Q were caused most often when one Evangelist replaced or combined Q with parallel material from another source.
Paper $35.95 • 296 pages • ISBN 9781589834125 • Early Christianity and Its Literature 1 • Hardback edition www.brill.nl"
Umm, would it not be simpler to propose that Luke copied Matthew, than to invent 'another source' which both gospel writers had access to which, either replacing Q or combining with Q, explains differences between Matthew and Luke in Q passages?
I guess I shall have to read the book to check the whole story of this particular justification for Q!
But on the face of it, Q scholarship, and not for the first time, looks a bit quirky in seeking to uphold the hypothesis of Q by resorting to yet another hypothesis rather than considering that the Q hypothesis is past its use by date.