双源假说1838

双源假说于19世纪出现，由马可居先说进一步发展而成，克里斯丁·赫尔曼·魏塞于1838年首次提出这个假说。目前这个假说仍是圣经研究中，最多学者支持的假说。

概论

双源假说结合了马可居先说，与Q来源。2SH假设存有一份记载了耶稣言行但已亡佚的文件(Q)，借此解释了双重传统。跟马可居先说（马可福音为四福音中最先写成）比较起来，这是2SH的一个特征。

对双源假说的质疑

尽管双源假说（简称2SH）最被广为接受，但它仍有一些疑点，主要是Q来源的问题。

在2SH身为最流行的对观福音来源解释的同时，一些次要点上的一致（minor agreement）带来一些关切。所谓次要点上的一致是指某些在马太福音与路加福音中合致的记载与马可福音却不相同。（例如耶稣被打时，有人嘲笑地问祂："告诉我们打你的是谁？"这段记载在马太福音与路加福音都有出现但未见于马可福音。）这些次要的一致于是被用来质疑马太福音与路加福音都得知马可福音的存在，但马太福音与路加福音却互不知道对方存在的命题。

其次，一个被用在两卷福音书中，如此主要且被重视的资料怎会就这样全然消失了呢？为何Q从来未曾被任何教会记录提及？从耶稣到耶柔米这段时间也未曾有任何学者提到。这些问题被澄清之前，Q一直都会受到怀疑。

但在多马福音出土之后，让许多圣经学者更深信Q来源的说法。

The two-source hypothesis (or 2SH) is an explanation for the synoptic problem, the pattern of similarities and differences among the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke. It posits that the Gospel of Matthew and the Gospel of Luke were based on the Gospel of Mark and a hypothetical sayings collection from the Christian oral tradition called Q.

The two-source hypothesis emerged in the 19th century. B. H. Streeter definitively stated the case in 1924, adding that two other sources, referred to as M and L, lie behind the material in Matthew and Luke respectively. The strengths of the hypothesis are its explanatory power regarding the shared and non-shared material in the three gospels; its weaknesses lie in the exceptions to those patterns, and in the hypothetical nature of its proposed collection of Jesus-sayings. Later scholars have advanced numerous elaborations and variations on the basic hypothesis, and even completely alternative hypotheses that are increasing in popularity.

When Streeter's two additional sources, M and L, are taken into account, this hypothesis is sometimes referred to as the four-document hypothesis.

History

The two-source hypothesis was first articulated in 1838 by Christian Hermann Weisse, but it did not gain wide acceptance among German critics until Heinrich Julius Holtzmann endorsed it in 1863. Prior to Holtzmann, most Catholic scholars held to the Augustinian hypothesis (Matthew → Mark → Luke) and Protestant biblical critics favored the Griesbach hypothesis (Matthew → Luke → Mark). The Two-Source Hypothesis crossed the channel into England in the 1880s primarily due to the efforts of William Sanday, culminating in B. H.

Background: the synoptic problem

The hypothesis is a solution to what is known as the synoptic problem: the question of how best to account for the differences and similarities between the three synoptic gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke. The answer to this problem has implications for the order in which the three were composed, and the sources on which their authors drew.

Any solution to the synoptic problem needs to account for two features:

Overview of the hypothesis

The 2SH attempts to solve the synoptic problem by advancing two propositions, Marcan priority to explain the triple tradition, and the existence of a lost Q document to solve the double tradition. In summary, the two-source hypothesis proposes that Matthew and Luke used Mark for its narrative material as well as for the basic structural outline of chronology of Jesus' life; and that Matthew and Luke use a second source, Q (from German Quelle, "source"), not extant, for the sayings (logia) found in both of them but not in Mark.

Problems with the hypothesis

While the 2SH remains the most popular explanation for the origins of the synoptic gospels, two questions – the existence of the so-called "minor agreements," and problems with the hypothesis of Q – continue at the centre of discussion over its explanatory power, and alternative hypotheses that posit the direct use of Matthew by Luke or vice versa without Q are increasing in popularity within scholarship.

Variants

The two-document hypothesis emerged in the 19th century: Mark as the earliest gospel, Matthew and Luke written independently and reliant on both Mark and the hypothetical Q.

In 1924 B. H. Streeter refined the two-document hypothesis into the four-document hypothesis based on the possibility of a Jewish M source (see the Gospel according to the Hebrews).

While the standard two-source theory holds Mark and Q to be independent, some argue that Q was also a source for Mark.

Other hypotheses

Some form of the Two Source hypothesis continues to be preferred by a majority of New Testament scholars as the theory that is best able to resolve the synoptic problem. Nevertheless, doubts about the problems of the minor agreements and, especially, the hypothetical Q, have produced alternative hypotheses.

In 1955 a British scholar, A. M. Farrer, proposed that one could dispense with Q by arguing that Luke revised both Mark and Matthew. In 1965 an American scholar, William R.