Since it made for some good discussion, I thought I would point to this article just published on Wallace's blog. He basically says that the arguments of Q are fairly weak: (1) We would not expect any Q document to exist if Matthew and Luke "swallowed" it up. Why keep it around as a separate document if it has been improved by Luke and Matthew? (2) If there are only 2 (published) Mss of Mark before the 4th century (though long considered canonical by the 2nd century), why would we expect a Q document to have survived as well (especially considering #1)? (3) It is possible that we have remnants of a proto-Q document in many of the Luke/Matthew Ms fragments. Wallace then gives a short list of 8 Mss (all from Luke btw, though he explains why this is the case) and argues why these may be a valid Q document or at least a proto-Q document He then goes on to give 5 guidelines to id a Q Ms (all to be taken as a whole to aid in id not to solidify): (1) early (pre 4th century date) (2) exclusive double-tradition w/ Matt (duh!) (3) no markings id it from Luke (as was done in the Eusebian canons) (4) different order as we find in Luke (or Matt?); this is his strongest point IMO (5) slight difference between Luke (indicating a Lukan redaction) At the end of the article, he applies these criteria to the 8 Mss mentioned above. He goes on to give other proofs of the existence of Q, but I'm not going to list them all. Check out the article. Even if you disagree (and I still do), it shows that this is not simply a modernist way to deny inspiration. Prominent evangelical scholars hold to it at the same time holding to inspiration. Wallace is a good example. And he even admits that he is not holding his breath that any soon to be published Mss will be a Q document. But he is obviously hopeful (probably in the same way a pro-Byzantine text person is hopeful that these finds confirm ancient Byzantine readings).