Bernard Muller wrote: ↑Sun Apr 05, 2020 6:16 pmto John2With Q, there is no need for Hebrew Matthew, and multiple translations, and Greek Matthew.
What evidence do you have for multiple translations in the make up of Greek Mathew? That's what I asked in my OP (by the way, I have two examples in Q). What happened to Ben's proto-Luke, Marcion's gospel?
In my view the multiple translations of the Hebrew Matthew would essentially be "Q," if not quite in the sense it is commonly thought (i.e., they would not have been collections of "sayings" only).
As for the NT Matthew using multiple translations of the Hebrew Matthew, I think (and have been saying) that it could have incorporated "one or more" of them, with one being the "double tradition," which I gather has more "semitisms" than other parts of the NT Matthew, and thus these "semitisms" could be evidence that at least those parts of the NT Matthew were derived from a translation of the Hebrew Matthew.
And this would tie in with my understanding (as per Bauckham) that Papias is saying that the Hebrew "logia" (which I view as being a gospel) were "translated" rather than "interpreted."
As for Luke, I think it may have incorporated the same "double tradition" source that is in the NT Matthew along with perhaps the parts of Luke that resemble the Ebionite Matthew.
As for "proto-Luke," I think there could have been one or more drafts of Luke in circulation by c. 95 CE (made by the same author, who in my view could have been Epaphroditus) and that Marcion used one of them, but that all drafts were written after Mark and the Hebrew Matthew and its translations (and possibly also after the NT Matthew).