Q almost certainly doesn't exist and Matthew was written first. Discuss 
So does that mean you're in on the old "Mark is a synopsis/abridged version of Matthew" camp?
Mark includes some details that are especially awkward and seem to be sort of elided out of the other Synoptic Gospels (especially the high status of John the Baptist and the presence of Jesus' siblings) and it would make more sense if Mark came first, but Matthew first is not an unheard of position.
Yup. I find it far more likely that Mark abridged Matthew's gospel and threw in a few pieces of oral tradition than hypothesizing an extra document (Q) that we have absolutely no direct evidence for or reference to in the tradition.
I would agree with this. It was only an intro class, but the two-source hypothesis was the only one that was really explored in my New Testament class a couple years back, and I think it's a really weak hypothesis because there is no mention of the Q source outside contemporary Biblical scholarship. The theory itself is a fairly recent one.
