The sayings: Gospel Q edited by James Robinson, Paul Hoffman & John S. Kloppenborg This is an interesting little book which deals with a mythic source called Q.  Like the JEPD Documentery Hypothesis, scholars have invented a manuscript which they call Q and claim that the gospel writers used it as their source for recording the words and deeds of Jesus.  I say mythic and invented because no such document exists outside of the imagination of these scholars and all their work is pure conjecture. The problem with the scholarly world is that they cannot just accept the fact that the gospels were as written and writtenby the authors whose names grace the front page of each book. They look for any excuse to dismiss the authority and guidance of God while trying to drag the Bible down to a human level.  Like the JEPD 'documents' no scholar has been able to unearth any evidence or fragment of a manuscript to prove that it acually existed or was used by the apostles or their aides to write their own works.  It is an exercise in futility to even consider such an idea as 1. mathew and john did not need source material, they were eyewitnesses to most of the events and dialogues; 2. They had the Holy Spirit guiding them and providing them with the information they woul dneed for those events they were not present, i.e. the birth & baptism of Christ; 3.  they woul dhave tlaked amongst themselves telling each other what they had witnessed and experienced. This idea of a 'Q' source document is outlandish and removes any spiritual influence.  The authors could not come up with any good reason why such a document would have existed in the first place, they offer no credible, if anyone, person as the author who would have been privy to all events and be literate enough to write everything down.  There is nothing in this work which provides anything remotely credible for this  perspective to have a honest hearing. Another main problem is that throughout the pages of this work, the editors keep saying that the orignal sayings have been reconstructed and it is possible to tell which came from 'Q' and which didn't.  Yet they fail to say that they cannot know for sure for they have no ancient document with which to compare thier work with and see if they got it right.  Such a source document does not exist  and at best all the work to 'reconstruct' this document is conjecture at best and a hoax at worst. There is nothing in history that indicates that the gospel writers used another source other than what they have claimed.  Too many variables are also ignored as the editors lay out their argument andit is best for the christian to just dismiss this line of thinking and accept the fact that the gospel writers were skillful enough and intelligent enough to write their own work a God guided them.