Ever heard of "Q" - the mythical Gospel? Here's how the theory goes,
Matthew, Mark, and Luke have similarities. Therefore (the scholars
conclude) either they copied from one another, or else there was some
missing "source" book "Q" that they must have copied from (in German
"source" starts with a "q"). Since "Q" is missing we will never know
what Jesus really did or really said (does that sound familiar: "Yea,
hath God said...?")

Their strict logical rules go in one direction:
(1) any differences between the gospel accounts mean the writers just
made up the information and therefore are erroneous;
(2) any similarities in the gospel accounts mean the writers just copied
each other and therefore are erroneous.

Get it? It's sort of like "Heads you lose, Tails I win" except now its
"Q the gospels are copies, No-Q the gospels are contradictions"

Here is what they say:
- if there is a Q then the Gospels are not really first hand accounts of
multiple witnesses that confirm one another.
- if there is no Q then the Gospels' overlapping accounts cannot be
"explained" and their differences mean the information is wrong.

This is one of the many fun "scholarship" games that the "good, godly,
dedicated Bible scholars" have invented to shipwreck simple
Bible-believers from genuine faith in the Bible as written.

_Well, How about a better way of looking at things:_
(1) God the Holy Spirit is perfectly able to have each of the Gospel
writers give similar accounts - even word for word - because they are
each giving accurate accounts from the Holy Spirit of the things that
actually happened exactly as they are telling them and that they
witnessed; and
(2) God the Holy Spirit is able to have each Gospel writer add new and
different details to their accounts that shed additional light on what
happened or that describe another similar event that occurred in a
different time or place in Jesus Christ's ministry.

Notice that there is absolutely no proof of any inaccuracy in the Bible
that would cause us to reject this second, good-faith, way of looking at
the Gospel accounts. If anybody wants to go the "Q" route they take for
granted that the Bible is wrong - even though there is absolutely no
basis for doing so. Every single so-called "contradiction" between the
gospels is explained as either additional information, or describing a
different event, hence no proven errors exist anywhere in them. With no
proven errors, and actually many confirming facts, the rejection of the
"Q" approach is the reasonable one, unless somebody is churlish and
looking for an excuse to reject the Bible.

So next time someone throws the "Q" theory your way, tell them to go
flip a coin...