Talk:Four-document hypothesis

Combine with "Two-source hypothesis"?

The content of this article is very similar indeed with that of the 2SH one and in fact "The four-source hypothesis" is little more than an alternative label for the same underlying theory. I suggest combining the two and inserting the appropriate cross-references etc. The treatment of "proto-luke" here is entirely inadequate.Jpacobb (talk) 16:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Antiochian document and Document of infancy

These two hypothetical documents are shown in the diagram, but not mentioned in the article. Why not? What is the Antiochian document? I can find no information online about it, except passing mentions related to the same diagram. Koro Neil (talk) 00:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koro Neil: As for the Infancy document, Streeter wrote: "Taken all in all, the probabilities point to a written source" for the infancy narrative in Luke. As for the Antiochian document, it is more blurry and I am not really sure if the diagram is accurate; he wrote: "Geographically Capernaum is between Antioch and Jerusalem, and some Christian trader from Antioch having business at Capernaum, or in some city of Decapolis, may well have come across a collection of sayings made by Matthew and brought it home. [...] The Greek translation of Q, at any rate, must have been made for the use of a Greek Church, and since, if we regard the material peculiar to Luke as representing the tradition of Caesarea, that city is ruled out, Antioch, the first capital of Gentile Christianity, is the most likely place of origin. In Ch. XVII. I shall give reasons for supposing that our Gospel of Matthew was written in Antioch. There is also, for what it is worth, a tradition, found in Eusebius and in the Latin Prologues to the Gospels, which has some support in the occurrence in D, etc., of a WE SECTION, Acts xi.27, that Luke was by descent a Syrian of Antioch. I should not care to lay much weight on either of these considerations as evidence for connecting Q with Antioch, but so far as they go they are in favour of the connection." (source). I believe those are what the diagram refers to. For more precisions, you can ask the author of the diagram. As a sidenote, the diagram of the Four-Document hypothesis in The five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus: New Translation and Commentary (p.15) does not mention those two documents. Veverve (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]