Is the theory of a “Q source” persuasive?

A synopsis where you can see the three Synoptic Gospels in parallel may be helpful:Aland, K., ed. Synopsis of the Four Gospels (Greek/English; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994).  The Bodleian and Theology Faculty libraries

Note: Mark Goodacre, who does not find the theory of Q persuasive, has a comprehensive website of sources for studying Q: as well as two excellent podcasts which introduce the debate:

Dungan, D. L. 1970-71. ‘Mark, the abridgement of Matthew and Luke’ in Hadidian, Miller et al (eds.) Jesus and Man’s Hope, 2 Vols.; Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. vol. 1, pp. 51-97.

Fitzmyer, J. A. 1998. ‘The Priority of Mark and the “Q” source in Luke’ in his To Advance the Gospel: New Testament Studies, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.           

Foster, P. et al., eds. New Studies in the Synoptic Problem (BETL 239; Leuven: Peeters, 2011).

Goodacre, M. 2001. The Synoptic Problem: A Way through the Maze. London: T&T Clark.

Goodacre, M. and N Perrin, eds. 2004. Questioning Q. London: SPCK.

Goulder, M. D. 1989. Luke: A New Paradigm, 2 Vols.; Sheffield: JSOT. vol 1, chs. 1-2.           

Kloppenborg, J.S. 2000. Excavating Q: The History  and Setting of the Sayings Gospel.  Edinburgh: T&T Clark.  ch. 1.

Streeter, B. H. The Four Gospels. 1924. London: Macmillan and Co. esp. in ch. 7 on ‘The Fundamental Solution’.

Tuckett, C. M. 1996. Q and the History of Early Christianity. Edinburgh: T&T Clark. pp. 1-40.