Rather than the traditional interpretation-that Papias was referring to the writing of Matthew in Hebrew-Schleiermacher proposed that Papias was actually referring to a sayings collection of the apostle Matthew that was later used, together with narrative elements, by another "Matthew" and by the other Evangelists. 95–109 AD ("Matthew compiled the oracles ( logia) of the Lord in a Hebrew manner of speech, and everyone translated them as well he could") as evidence of a separate source. Schleiermacher interpreted an enigmatic statement by the early Christian writer Papias of Hierapolis, c. The next person to advance the "sayings" hypothesis was the German Friedrich Schleiermacher in 1832. In his 1801 work, A dissertation on the Origin and Composition of our Three First Canonical Gospels, he used the Hebrew letter aleph ( א) to denote the narrative source and the letter beth ( ב) to denote the sayings source. Herbert Marsh is seen by some as the first person to hypothesize the existence of a "narrative" source and a "sayings" source, although he included in the latter parables unique to Matthew and unique to Luke. They suggested that neither Gospel drew upon the other, but upon a second common source, termed Q. However, Matthew and Luke also share large sections of text not found in Mark. Nineteenth-century New Testament scholars who rejected Matthew's priority in favor of Marcan priority speculated that Matthew's and Luke's authors drew the material they have in common with the Gospel of Mark from the Gospel of Mark. įor centuries, biblical scholars followed the Augustinian hypothesis: that the Gospel of Matthew was the first to be written, Mark used Matthew in the writing of his, and Luke followed both Matthew and Mark in his (the Gospel of John is quite different from the other three, which because of their similarity are called the Synoptic Gospels).
Despite challenges, the two-source hypothesis retains wide support. Hence, it may have been preferable to copy instead from the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, "where the sayings of Jesus from Q were rephrased to avoid misunderstandings, and to fit their own situations and their understanding of what Jesus had really meant". However, copying Q might have been seen as unnecessary, as its contents were preserved in the canonical gospels. Omitting what should have been a highly treasured dominical document from all early Church catalogs, its lack of mention by Jerome is a conundrum of modern Biblical scholarship. Others have attempted to determine the stages in which Q was composed. Some scholars have postulated that Q is actually a plurality of sources, some written and some oral. In the two-source hypothesis, the three-source hypothesis and the Q+/Papias hypothesis, Matthew and Luke both used Mark and Q as sources. Streeter formulated a widely accepted view of Q: that it was written in Koine Greek that most of its contents appear in Matthew, in Luke, or in both and that Luke more often preserves the text's original order than Matthew. Īlong with Marcan priority, Q was hypothesized by 1900, and is one of the foundations of most modern gospel scholarship. According to this hypothesis, this material was drawn from the early Church's oral gospel traditions.
Q is part of the common material found in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. The Q source (also called Q document(s), Q Gospel, or Q from German: Quelle, meaning "source") is a hypothetical written collection of primarily Jesus' sayings (λόγια : logia). Material from two other sources-the M source and the L source-are represented in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke here by green and teal respectively. Q was conceived as the most likely explanation behind the common material (mostly sayings) found in the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke but not in the Gospel of Mark. The "Two-source Hypothesis" proposes that the Gospels of Matthew and Luke were written independently, each using Mark and a second hypothetical document called "Q" as a source.
0 kommentar(er)
