Talk:Two-source hypothesis

Recent edits

I've extended the article. Very little has been deleted, or if it seems it has, it's probably still there but in different words. The weakness of what I've done is that I've relied very heavily on a single source. So if anyone wants to get other sourecs, I think it's probably a good idea. PiCo 08:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

The Q narrative problem?

In the section "Problems with Q", we have:

Two additional problems are noteworthy, the "problem of fatigue"and the Q narrative problem.

Followed by an explanation of the former, but not the latter. If someone could add an explanation, that would be lovely.

-- Tom Anderson 2008-04-30 1826 +0100 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.56.64.74 (talk) 17:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Authorship of the synoptic gospels

I think a lot is presumed in the methods of analysing the authorship of the synoptic gospels. Independent authorship, for example. Alvar Ellegard wrote a very thoughtful book on the gospel phenomenon that I have never seen refuted. From what I gather from Ellegard, St. Ignatus is as likely to have written at least one of the synoptic gospels as anyone. If Mark or Luke or Matthew had really written such divine volumes, why no other biographical record of them and nothing else and no other writing or record? But why couldn't they have all three been written by the same person? That would obviate the need to postulate 'Q' or interdependence.

They didn't have photocopiers or publishers in those days. If one of the churches needed an account of who and what Jesus was and did, Bishop Ignatus might well have created it for them, in good faith, and sent it on its way. THen created another for another church and still a third from memory. Differing slightly, written at different times, he might have named them differently. I'm much more impressed with the similarities of the gospels than I am with their differences. They are almost identical, except some elements are expanded here or curtailed there. I would suspect someone of plagerism if they were authored by different people. I would think they were all authored by the same person, perhaps at different times when recollections had faded or something needed to be added that had become aware or thought of in the interim, sayings, for example, suited to different populations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor Krepotkin (talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

.... bear in mind that this isn't a scholarly journal, and we're not trying to find "the truth" about anything - including the truth about how the Gospels came to be written. Our task is simply to put before the reader the major scholarly views on the subject. If Ellegard's views aren't widely accepted, then they have no place in the article, even if he happens to be right. PiCo (talk) 08:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for youtr help. I didn't mean to make any contribution to or to edit an original article. I may be under a misaprehension, but I understood this to be a talk page, similar to a forum. If I am wrong, please guide me. I have been looking for any discussion that postulates a single authorship for the three synoptic gospels and there is none I've ever come across, however likely it seems to me. Nothing I have seen seems to preclude that possibility. Professor Krepotkin (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I see. Yes, this is a Talk page and you're using it correctly. Strictly speaking, Talk pages are to discuss improvements to articles, but people do sometimes ask for guidance to finding further information. Personally I've never heard of any theory of one author for the three synoptics, so I can't help you. PiCo (talk) 04:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Merge "Four Document Hypothesis" into this article?

The two articles deal with the same problem: the origins of the three synoptic gospels. As a label the "two-source hypothesis" emphasises the two common "back-ground sources" (Mark and Q) allegedly used by Matthew and Luke: the "four document hypothesis" picks up the fact that these two each had a further personal source to draw on. The reason I suggest merging into this article is simply that it is much fuller than the other. Which ever way the merger goes, the hypothesis of "proto-Luke" will need fuller explanation.Jpacobb (talk) 17:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

• When I was in graduate school, we were taught the 4SH instead of the 2SH. So I'd suggest either merging this article into the other, which seems to me to be the more commonly-accepted theory, or to merge the articles under a different name (though I'm not sure what name to use). Aristophanes68 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

• The way I usually see it presented is that the 4SH is just an elaboration of the 2SH, explicitly positing M and L sources. On closer examination, there's also the business of proto-Luke and a couple of other hypothetical documents. But it's still just a sub-theory. As such, 2SH necessarily enjoys wider acceptance than 4SH. I would like to see four-document hypothesis as well as M source and L source articles merged into this article as a section. --SlothMcCarty (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

• I think this article should be kept as Streeter's "Four Document Hypothesis". A new section could be added to the "Two Source Hypothesis" article entitled the "Four Source Hypothesis". Note that Stephen Carlson shows both versions in his overview of the Synoptic Problem. The 4SH version without intermediate documents is a trivial extension of the 2SH; it simply makes the M and L "sources" explicit rather than implied. M and L are merely residuals in the 2SH. Nothing is postulated about them in the 2SH itself; i.e., they could be 100% redaction. Not so, however, with Streeter's 4GH, which postulates the existence of an Antiochian source in addition to M and proto-Luke as a primitive gospel. This is a significant difference because it allows for the possibility of Q/L overlaps within proto-Luke prior to Luke's redaction. That can help to explain some of the low overlaps in wording when comparing Q pericopes between Matthew and Luke. Ignocrates (talk) 00:51, 27 March 2014 (UTC)'

• Streeter proposed a "4 Document Source" solution as opposed to the "2 Source Hypothesis" while there are similiarities, there are also differences. They could be merged....but should they? I am currently in Bible College and that is what we are discussing this semester.

Sub-standard References?

Do the supporting references given here meet the minimum wiki standards for verifiability? Most seem to be on-line articles (or formerly on-line ones) rather than properly published texts.Jpacobb (talk) 17:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

?

Oral transmission (synoptic problem). Eyes welcome. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)