I want to ask if the synoptic 'problem' is too narrowly defined.
I am just reading Hurst's monograph on Hebrews (some preparation for
Aberdeen this summer). The background to Hebrews seems to have a positive
connection to Acts 7 - the speech of Stephen. Both reflect an (independent
of Paul) recognition of the wider scope of the tradition of the Jews, a
scope that includes the Diaspora and ultimately all the nations.
Hurst in comparing Hebrews with Acts 7 refers to the synoptic pericope in
Luke and Matthew on the murderous deeds of the past - one of the notorious
Luke-Matthew overlaps (http://bmd.gx.ca/synoptic/tuel_only_x.htm#194
It occurred to me, that we have multiple sources implied in Hebrews,
Luke-Acts and Matthew that speak of the need to move away from the security
of a fixed law and fixed place of worship to a pattern of life that does not
produce violence. We don't need Q to see the possibility that these two
sections of M-L overlap could arise independently.
Who is working on the synoptic problem including the light that might come
from what seem like 'other places'?
(To continue Bob Schacht's analogy - Hebrews and Acts are not junk mail. But
'known Q' - a very small sample, I think)