Talk:Source criticism (biblical studies)

[Untitled]
I haven't edited the page, because I notice that the last edit undid a change similar to the one I would have made. I would have changed the statement about the general consensus on "Q"- I'd call it a majority view rather than a general consensus. There are many other theories, but at least two others have sizeable followings- the Griesbach hypothesis arguing for Matthean priority, and the Farrer hypothesis agreeing with Markan priority but dispensing with Q. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.121.220.12 (talk) 10:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

On Q
The page has "...Mark and a written collection of Jesus's sayings, which has been given the name Q by scholars. This latter document has now been lost,"

Asserts that Q was in fact a document that was lost. Q remains a hypothetical document only. IF there was a Q then it has been lost. You just can't say "the hypothetical document which may or may not have existed and if it did exist as a single document it would have been compiled from multiple sources, has now been lost." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B0E:7670:3D0A:E234:ABD1:6DE8 (talk) 20:03, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

DH with respect to Tanakh
The Documentary Hypothesis is not a consensus view anymore. For example, the Wikipedia page on the Elohist source states "This documentary hypothesis dominated much of the 20th century, but the 20th-century consensus surrounding this hypothesis has now been broken down." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.32.179.154 (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2024 (UTC)