Anybody that starts an argument with 'according to tradition' has already lost any scientific credibility. > So, in the end "the Q source" isn't any written so

Anybody that starts an argument with 'according to tradition' has already lost any scientific credibility. > So, in the end "the Q source" isn't any written source it is just what they both remembered from their conversations with Peter and Paul (or, in Matthew's case, even with the Jesus himself). What a amazing memories they had, decades later, without sharing a written source by just talking to the same people they literally produced the same text word for word, with common phrasing, literally style and everything. Yeah totally, that is incredibly likely. Or you can actually read 'The case against Q' that shows there evidence of literally dependence. At some point its pretty easy to identify who is serious about studying this topic and how just wants to take 'tradition' as an article of faith.