Editing Two-source hypothesis (section)

==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.&nbsp;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.<ref>{{cite book | title=Mark and Q: A Study of the Overlap Texts | last=Fleddermann | first=Harry T. | year=1995 | publisher=Leuven University Press | isbn=906186710X}}</ref> This is sometimes called the ''Modified two-document hypothesis'' (although that term was also used in older literature to refer to the Four-document hypothesis).<ref>{{cite book | title=Two Shipwrecked Gospels: The Logoi of Jesus and Papias's Exposition of Logia about the Lord | url=https://archive.org/details/twoshipwreckedgo00macd | url-access=limited | last=MacDonald | first=Dennis R. |author-link=Dennis R. MacDonald | year=2012 | pages=[https://archive.org/details/twoshipwreckedgo00macd/page/n89 73]–75 | publisher=Society of Biblical Lit | isbn=978-1589836914}}</ref>

A number of scholars have suggested a [[Three-source hypothesis]], that Luke actually did make some use of Matthew after all. This allows much more flexibility in the reconstruction of Q.

Dunn proposes an ''Oral Q'' hypothesis, in which Q is not a document but a body of oral teachings.<ref>{{cite book | title=The Oral Gospel Tradition | last=Dunn | first=James D. G. | year=2013 | pages=80–108 | publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans | isbn=978-0802867827}}</ref>