Is it possible that Q was simply oral history? We forget today in a post-literate society that in those days, when literacy was rarer, people had the memory capacity to remember enormous amounts and recite from memory.
As I understand it, the Q hypothesis is that there was a written source which was used by both Matthew and Luke. Certainly that source (if it existed), and/or Matthew and Luke themselves, could have been based on oral history.
“Oral tradition” might be a less loaded description. Also consider, @md-2000, that just because people were willing and able to recite long stories doesn’t mean they always recalled the stories correctly, or even the same from telling to telling. People’s minds didn’t get smaller with the expansion of literacy: it just became easier to identify the faults in oral tradition because people no longer had to rely on their memory alone to check another’s. Not, Gosh, all of the sudden it seems peoples’ memory have gotten a lot worse since this new-fangled written inscription scheme came into fashion, but, Damn, I guess we weren’t as good at remembering complex details as we thought we were now that we have these written accounts to compare them to.
Human memory seems to be particularly good at “rote learning” (Despite the modern trend to denigrate it). We remember poems, songs, plays, etc. (Or for some of us, scenes from Monty Python) simply because we more easily remember that B follows A - which is what the prompter is doing in a play if someone does forget their line. One or two words starts the spigot flowing again.
Actually, we have just chosen not to remember so much now that we have literacy to help us, because it is not necessary - as a result, we don’t train that part of our brain. However, people whose profession or hobby revolves around certain topics will often “know the subject inside out” from constant exposure.
Modern memory isn’t as good because we’re too busy trying to remember all our separate, complex passwords that we have to change every three months.
Don’t be silly. That’s what sticky notes are for.