Ummm…but wouldn’t a Hebrew Gospel used by either Luke or Matthew (common to both of them) still be “Q”–a source (quelle)?
I’ve always liked the speculation that the Q source was the Hebrew/Aramaic Matthew collection of sayings of Jesus “that everyone interpreted as best he could.”

Jim Edwards’ class on the Gospel of Mark at Whitworth College is what inspired me to study the Scriptures as a vocation. He is a brilliant pedagogue and is deeply committed to the church. This book is the product of his industrious research and curiosity. I think that Edwards’ fresh research of the patristic evidence for a Hebrew Gospel and catalogue of semitisms in Luke should be taken seriously. This is a must read for serious students of the gospels.

Drew, I, too, thought his fresh examination of the patristic stuff made this book special … I worked very carefully Josef Kurzinger’s well-known examination of Papias at one time, and that book left me wondering if we knew enough to make some of our judgments on Q.
But careful underlining is the primary evidence, not what the later patristics said, and no matter how one concludes, there’s something connecting Matthew and Luke (and not Mark). Those lines are green in my Synopsis and they jump off the page at times.

How is this diff. from the material Matthew Black came up with in his Aramaic approach? How are they related?

Matthew, much different. This is about the Synoptic Problem and not the Aramaic substratum to the Gospel sayings of Jesus.

Very interesting. Just did my lecture on the synoptic problem, I’ll have to add a footnote next week.
So on a rather banal note: what colours did you use to underline?

Ed, hardly banal!
Brown for triple tradition.
Blue for double tradition between Mark and Matthew.
Green for double tradition between Luke and Matthew.
Red for unique to any Gospel.

Thanks, Scot.

Did Jimmy’s question (#1) get overlooked? What is the difference between a Hebrew “source” and Q? Is it just language?
Be well, Jeff

Wow, does all this bring back memories. Richard Longenecker had us do the colored underlining exercise for his “Criticism of the Gospels” class at Trinity. I had thought I had enough undergrad work in the gospels (was that a mistake!), so this was my first NT course in my first quarter at TEDS. Grant Osborn, a senior at the time I believe, was a classmate. (We were in the same room but not in the same class!) But Longenecker was a GREAT prof!

Did anyone ever take Linnemann seriously with her suggestion of the primacy of Matthew? I am intrigued though with this Hebrew gospel suggestion.

Colour coding?
wow, I’d use a spreadhseet. Much more flexible. Then you cna do more with the data too. Colour coding seems to crude to me.

Darryl, no I don’t think that many took her seriously. At any rate, not many think Matthew has priority.
Phil, do you have the Synopsis in Greek on a spreadsheet?

Jimmy, Edwards finds no traditional Q source. One could say he’s splintering the Q hypothesis.

If anyone has that spreadsheet, I’d be interested in a copy too (even though I’m only a dilettante in this field).
Scot and others — what do you think would be the result with respect to the canon if Q or the Hebrew source or whatever other underlying source(s) were ever found in a document cache somewhere?

What are the primary differences between the posited Q and “the Hebrew gospel”?

dopderbeck, if found … that’s a good one.
1. Some would say it’s a forgery. (Now let’s say we prove it’s not.)
2. Some would say it’s not inspired but is a good source for Jesus studies.
3. Some would say immediately that it’s a new canonical book.
4. There would have to be a major synod of RCC, EO, and Prots to discuss inclusion in the canon.
Edwards’ Hebrew Gospel is behind the material found in the Gospel of Luke but not in Matthew or Mark.
Much of Edwards’ “double tradition” is what other scholars call Q. He’s down on Q, but I still think he’s got to explain how we have so many verses in common between Matthew and Luke but not found in Mark.

John,
In essence, Edwards thinks the Q hypothesis indefensible as it is understood. There is no evidence for an anthology of the sayings of Jesus. He unfortunately suggests that Q could be connected to “genetic engineering” — that is, find a Jesus amenable to liberals (moral teachings, no miraculous — though Q does have a miracle story and it has sayings about exorcisms). And he argues that the Q hypothesis is not “necessary,” and any conclusion of a historical undertaking that is denied because it is not necessary is not good historical logic. No historical study leads to necessity. I nitpick perhaps.
Having said that, I’m not huge on proving much about Q but I do think there is a common tradition, written or not, Aramaic/Hebrew or Greek, that was used both by Matthew and Luke and it is mostly sayings of Jesus.
Part of the problem is that Q scholars guess too much about origin, redaction, etc.. This stuff is nonfaslifiable and too speculative.
Oddly, Edwards says there are no conclusive theories about how the double tradition developed but he is conclusive that it was not Q. He thinks the double tradition was in a narrative sequence, but he can’t find evidence for that in the double tradition itself. He wisely goes to Luke 1:1-4, but not all will be convinced.

Side note: Ben Witherington seems to have tossed around the idea that Papias’ metion of Matthew’s first Hebrew gospel might be akin to Q and that a later editors heavy use of that document is what got our “Matthew” its name.

ChrisB, yes, and an old theory that TW Manson considered. Edwards doesn’t connect the Hebrew Gospel to Matthew but to Luke’s special material, where (and he’s dead right here) we find an unusual number of Semitisms and these stand out from the rest of Luke’s Gospel.

A remote side bar question: The John who wrote the apocalypse (Revelation) saw the twelve apostles sitting on thrones…Is the author of Revelation a different John than the seated apostle John? Are there legitimate questions of authorship of Revelation?

Scot,
No highlighting in your synopsis?! Harold Hoehner made us highlight if the accounts were identical in form, and underline if they were the same word but different form.

Man, you are bad for my book budget. Just bought one of your ultra-expensive academic books. Now I have to get this. Oy!

Forget comment #21. I did a little research and got my question(s) answered.

Even more so… We can go with a more precise meaning and better time table for the gospel of Mark if Matthew is first. We still do not need “Q”, or Markan priority, if Peter read Matthew, and Matthew was acquaintances to Luke as Luke might have implied. Why make it so difficult?