I recently learned about the forthcoming John C. Poirier and Jeff Peterson co-edited LNTS volume, Marcan Priority Without Q: Explorations in the Farrer Hypothesis, which I look forward to reading. In addition to Jack and Jeff both being great scholars, I really enjoyed Jack's contribution to the Goodacre/Perrin book, Questioning Q. But, between these studies and random recent conversations at SBL and other places with scholars who are increasingly doubtful of the existence of Q, it made me wonder: Is Mark Goodacre still in the minority? I've heard Mark, on several occasions, refer to his stance on Q (most clearly articulated in his The Case Against Q), which is that there was no Q, as a "minority" position. Historically he's right, but in my opinion--and I'd be interested to hear others' thoughts--although this may still be the minority, it is a growing and increasingly-vocal minority. I have myself always been Q agnostic, leaning heavily toward all-out Q doubter. I'm not a Synoptic Problem specialist, but for me the Q hypothesis makes sense only in a methodology (source and form criticism) that I think seriously misconceives the transmission of the gospel tradition in some ways (though correctly presenting it in others). In other words, I often don't think Q is necessary, apart from whether it's possible. Also, and I think this is a point that goes back to Goulder but I've read Mark make as well, I think the Q hypothesis underestimates the creative abilities of the Gospel authors, viewing them sometimes as nearly robots. I'm still reserving judgement entirely until I read Alan Kirk's magnum opus on the Synoptic Problem from an ancient media and memory perspective, but I don't think Mark's position is quite the minority it used to be.