Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 915 views

    Four Document Hypothesis

    Uploaded by

    Joaquín Riera
    The document discusses Burnett Hillman Streeter's four-document hypothesis from 1924 regarding the sources used to write the gospels of Matthew and Luke. It proposes that in addition to using the gospel of Mark, Matthew and Luke each used three other lost sources: Q, M-Source, and L source. Streeter believed Q was used by both gospels, M-Source was only used by Matthew, and L source was only used by Luke. The document also notes Streeter hypothesized an early version of Luke, called proto-Luke, that did not include material from Mark or the birth narrative.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Four Document Hypothesis

    Uploaded by

    Joaquín Riera
    915 views3 pages
    The document discusses Burnett Hillman Streeter's four-document hypothesis from 1924 regarding the sources used to write the gospels of Matthew and Luke. It proposes that in addition to using the gospel of Mark, Matthew and Luke each used three other lost sources: Q, M-Source, and L source. Streeter believed Q was used by both gospels, M-Source was only used by Matthew, and L source was only used by Luke. The document also notes Streeter hypothesized an early version of Luke, called proto-Luke, that did not include material from Mark or the birth narrative.

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses Burnett Hillman Streeter's four-document hypothesis from 1924 regarding the sources used to write the gospels of Matthew and Luke. It proposes that in addition to using the gospel of Mark, Matthew and Luke each used three other lost sources: Q, M-Source, and L source. Streeter believed Q was used by both gospels, M-Source was only used by Matthew, and L source was only used by Luke. The document also notes Streeter hypothesized an early version of Luke, called proto-Luke, that did not include material from Mark or the birth narrative.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    915 views3 pages

    Four Document Hypothesis

    Uploaded by

    Joaquín Riera
    The document discusses Burnett Hillman Streeter's four-document hypothesis from 1924 regarding the sources used to write the gospels of Matthew and Luke. It proposes that in addition to using the gospel of Mark, Matthew and Luke each used three other lost sources: Q, M-Source, and L source. Streeter believed Q was used by both gospels, M-Source was only used by Matthew, and L source was only used by Luke. The document also notes Streeter hypothesized an early version of Luke, called proto-Luke, that did not include material from Mark or the birth narrative.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 3
    At a glance
    Powered by AI
    The key takeaways are that the four-document hypothesis proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke used at least four sources: the Gospel of Mark, Q source, M source, and L source.

    The four-document hypothesis is an explanation for the relationship between the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It posits that there were at least four sources to the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke: the Gospel of Mark, and three lost sources: Q, M-Source, and L source.

    According to Streeter's analysis the four sources are: the Gospel of Mark, Q source which was an Antiochene translation of a document originally composed in Aramaic, M source which had a Judaistic character and suggested a Jerusalem origin, and L source which Streeter assigned to Caesarea.

    Four-document hypothesis

    1
    Four-document hypothesis
    The Streeter's Four Document Hypothesis
    A four-document hypothesis or
    four-source hypothesis is an
    explanation for the relationship
    between the three Gospels of Matthew,
    Mark, and Luke. It posits that there
    were at least four sources to the Gospel
    of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke:
    the Gospel of Mark, and three lost
    sources: Q, M-Source, and L source. It
    was proposed by Burnett Hillman
    Streeter in 1924, who refined the
    two-source hypothesis into a
    four-source hypothesis.
    [1]
    According to Streeter's analysis the
    non-Marcan matter in Luke has to be
    distinguished into at least two sources,
    Q and L. In a similar way he argued
    that Matthew used a peculiar source, which we may style M, as well as Q. Luke did not know M, and Matthew did
    not know L. Source M has the Judaistic character (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews), it suggests a Jerusalem
    origin, source L he assigned to Caesarea, and source Q connected with Antioch. The document Q was an Antiochene
    translation of a document originally composed in Aramaic possibly by the Apostle Matthew for Galilean
    Christians. Gospel of Luke developed in two phases (see picture).
    According to this view the first gospel is a combination of the traditions of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Rome, while the
    third gospel represents Caesarea, Antioch, and Rome. The fact that the Antiochene and Roman sources were
    reproduced by both Evangelists Matthew and Luke was due to the importance of those Churches. Streeter thought
    there is no evidence that the other sources are less authentic.
    Streeter hypothesized a proto-Luke document, an early version of Luke that did not incorporate material from Mark
    or the birth narrative.
    [2]
    According to this hypothesis, the evangelist added material from Mark and the birth
    narratives later. Telling against this hypothesis, however, the gospel has no underlying passion tradition separate
    from Mark, and Luke's travel account is evidently based on Mark 10. A contemporary version of the four-source
    theory omits proto-Luke, with the evangelist combining Mark, Q, and L directly.
    [3]
    Still, the gospel might have
    circulated originally without the birth narrative in the first two chapters.
    [4]
    Four-document hypothesis
    2
    Bibliography
    Burnett H. Streeter, The Four Gospels, a Study of Origins treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources,
    Authourship, & Dates
    [5]
    , (1924), pp. 223270.
    References
    [1] [1] Robert L. Thomas Three Views on the Origins of the Synoptic Gospels 2003 Page 64 "Several other problems must be considered by those
    who accept the two- or four-source hypothesis. lhg first, the four-source hypothesis is much more complex (positing Q, M, and L as sources)
    than the Two-Gospel Hypothesis (which ..."
    [2] [2] Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition).
    Chapter 2. Christian sources about Jesus.
    [3] Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Introduction," pp 130.
    [4] Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Birth &
    Infancy Stories" pp. 497526.
    [5] http:/ / www. katapi. org.uk/ 4Gospels/ Ch9. htm
    Article Sources and Contributors
    3
    Article Sources and Contributors
    Four-document hypothesis Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=570633339 Contributors: Aquatiki, In ictu oculi, Instaurare, Jojalozzo, Jpacobb, Leadwind, Leonard G., Leszek
    Jaczuk, Michael Hardy, Ret.Prof, VanishedUserABC, 6 anonymous edits
    Image Sources, Licenses and Contributors
    File:Streeter's the Four Document Hypothesis.PNG Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Streeter's_the_Four_Document_Hypothesis.PNG License: Creative Commons
    Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Contributors: Magog the Ogre, McZusatz, Sanya3, SlothMcCarty
    License
    Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
    //creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

    You might also like