Augustinian hypothesis

Encyclopedia : A : AU : AUG : Augustinian hypothesis

---

The Augustinian hypothesis is a solution to the synoptic problem, and concerns the origin of the Gospels of the New Testament. The hypothesis holds that Matthew was written first, then Mark, then Luke, and each Evangelist depended on those who preceded him. B. C. Butler proposed a related hypothesis in 1969 that Matthew wrote originally in Aramaic using Hebrew script, that his gospel was soon translated into Greek, and that the Greek text was the source for Mark and Luke. This hypothetical Hebrew gospel of Matthew is sometimes called proto-Matthew (see Aramaic primacy). Unlike some competing hypotheses, this hypothesis does not rely on any document that is not explicitly mentioned in historical testimony. This position is in the closest agreement with the Church Fathers' account of the gospels' origins.

Augustinian Position in Brief

• Matthew the Evangelist, a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, wrote the Gospel of Matthew. This is the first of the Canonical Gospels. It was written in Aramaic with Hebrew script for the first Christians, who were converted Jews. This was soon translated into Greek and used as a source for the Gospel of Mark and the Gospel of Luke. Alternatively, the Aramaic text was used as a source, and the Greek translation attended to the other Gospels and made like material agree linguistically.
• Mark the Evangelist, a disciple of the apostle Simon Peter, wrote the Gospel of Mark. This is the second of the Canonical Gospels, and used Matthew and the preaching of Peter as sources. An alternate position is that Mark is the third Gospel and also used Luke as a source because it too was a basis for the preaching of Peter (see Griesbach hypothesis).
• Luke the Evangelist, a disciple of Paul of Tarsus, wrote the Gospel of Luke. This is the third of the Canonical Gospels, and used both Matthew and Mark as sources.

The Augustinian hypothesis has a number of unique features when compared to other solutions to the synoptic problem. The foundation of evidence for the hypothesis is the writings of the Church Fathers. These historical sources date back to as early as the first half of the 2nd century, and they historically have been held as authoritative by most Christians for nearly 2 millennia. Furthermore, the hypothesis draws upon historical testimony, rather than textual criticism, as the primary line of evidence. The Augustinian hypothesis does not argue for the existence of sources or documents not explicitly mentioned in early Christian writings. Finally, adherents to the Augustinian hypothesis view it as a simplistic, coherent solution to the synoptic problem.

The main two areas of contention within the Augustinian community are whether Matthew was originally in Aramaic, and was it Mark or Luke who wrote second. A slightly modified version of the Augustinian hypothesis, known as the Griesbach hypothesis (mentioned above), agrees that Matthew wrote first and that Mark depended on Matthew, and does not dispute that it was in Hebrew and the translated to Geek, but argues that Mark also depended on Luke and therefore Luke antedates Mark. Because of the similarity on all primary points of contention, this hypothesis is also treated as a possible amendment to the Augustinian hypothesis.

The Augustinian hypothesis addresses certain fundamental points of contention surrounding the synoptic problem, such as how reliable the early Christian tradition is, which gospel was written first, whether there were there other unknown sources behind the gospels, to what extent, if any, the gospels were redacted, and to what extent the gospels were altered between the time they were originally written and the time the first surviving manuscripts appear. These and other matters are raised and alternate resolutions proposed by proponents of competing hypotheses, such as the Two-source hypothesis, its related the Q hypothesis, the Farrer hypothesis, and others.

Origin

The hypothesis takes its name from Augustine of Hippo, an early 5th century bishop and Church Father, who wrote:

"Now, those four evangelists whose names have gained the most remarkable circulation over the whole world, and whose number has been fixed as four, …are believed to have written in the order which follows: first Matthew, then Mark, thirdly Luke, lastly John."

"Of these four, it is true, only Matthew is reckoned to have written in the Hebrew language; the others in Greek. And however they may appear to have kept each of them a certain order of narration proper to himself, this certainly is not to be taken as if each individual writer chose to write in ignorance of what his predecessor had done…" St. Augustine, The Harmony of the Gospels, chapter 2. from [hypothesis.com]

Mark was famously dismissed by Augustine as "pedissequus et breviator Matthaei", the attendant and abbreviator of Matthew,Ibid. in direct contrast to the view that Mark's gospel was the earliest most commonly held in academia today. Augustine also discussed the commonalities between the Synoptic Gospels, including the identical language found in Matthew, Mark, and Luke. Augustine was not the first to articulate this view, as Irenaeus and Origen, among others, shared this ordering. However, Augustine was the first author to give a detailed scholarly textual analysis of the three texts interdependence, and to articulate a theory for the express purpose of explaining this fact.

Two traditions: Papias and Clement

The Church Fathers who wrote about he order and authorship of the canonical gospels all supported some basic ideas of the Augustinian hypothesis. A number of sources in antiquity asserted that Matthew was the author of the first Gospel, and that Mark wrote his Gospel after him based on the preaching of Peter. Various elements of this tradition are found in the writings of Irenaeus,Irenaeus, "Mark, the disciple and interpreter of Peter, also himself handed on to us in writing what was preached by Peter." Against Heresies, 3.1 Origen,Origen, "As to the four Gospels, which alone are indisputable in the Church of God under heaven, I learned from tradition that the first to have been written was that of Matthew," cited in: Eusebius, History of the Church, 6.25 Eusebius,Eusebius, "So brightly shone the light of the true religion on the minds of Peter’s hearers that, not satisfied with a single hearing or with the oral teaching of the divine message, they resorted to appeals of every kind to induce Mark (whose Gospel we have), as he was a follower of Peter, to leave them in writing a summary of the instruction they had received by word of mouth, nor did they let him go till they had persuaded him , and thus became responsible for the writing of what is known as the Gospel according to Mark. It is said that, on learning by revelation of the spirit what had happened, the apostle [Peter] was delighted at their enthusiasm and authorized the reading of the book in the churches." History of the Church et al. The earliest surviving references to the gospel tradition are quoted by Eusebius, and two different but related traditions appear in the works of Papias and the works of Clement.

Papias

According to Irenaeus, Papias was "a hearer of John and a companion of Polycarp , a man of primitive times," who wrote a volume in "five books."Against Heresies 5.33.4; quoted by Eusebius Hist. Eccl. 3.39.1. Historian David Hackett Fischer considers historical immediacy to be one of the key determinants of historicity and the church father Papias is a very early source in regard to testimony that the Matthew wrote his gospel first. Papias wrote the following:

"Matthew compiled the sayings in the Aramaic language, and everyone translated them as well he could."

"This, too, the elder [John] used to say. Mark, who had been Peter’s interpreter, wrote down carefully, but not in order, all that he remembered of the Lord's sayings and doings. For he had not heard the Lord or been one of his followers, but later, as I said, one of Peter's. Peter used to adopt his teachings to the occasion, without making a systematic arrangements of the Lord's sayings, so that Mark was quite justified in writing down some things just as he remembered them. For he had one purpose only – to leave out nothing that he had heard, and to make no misstatement about it."cited in: Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.39.15.

Clement

Eusebius also recorded an important tradition from Clement:

"In the same volumes Clement has found room for a tradition of the primitive authorities of the Church regarding the order of the gospels. It is this. He used to say that the earliest gospels were those containing the genealogies [Matthew, Luke], while Mark's originated as follows: When, at Rome, Peter had openly preached the word and by the spirit had proclaimed the gospel, the large audience urged Mark, who had followed him for a long time and remembered what had been said, to write it all down. This he did, making his gospel available to all who wanted it. When Peter heard about this, he made no objection and gave no special encouragement. Last of all, aware that the physical facts had been recorded in the gospels, encouraged by his pupils and irresistibly moved by the Spirit, John wrote a spiritual gospel.Eusebius on Clement, History of the Church. 6.14.1.

This source claims multiple authorities of antiquity, not merely Papias. However, it conflicts with the Augustinian hypothesis concerning the order of Mark and Luke. It should be noted that the order of Mark and Luke, and their interdependence, is not a primary point of contention of the hypothesis. Furthermore, the significant point of contention, Matthean priority, is affirmed by both traditions. Lastly, the more modern Griesbach hypothesis resolves the difficulty with this secondary point of contention by stating Luke wrote before Mark.

There is general consensus in the historical sources in favor of the Augustinian hypothesis. However, one discrepancy amongst the sources is that Irenaeus places the composition of Mark after Peter's death, while Origen, Eusebius, and Clement claimed Peter was alive and approved the work. Because the hypothesis does not address whether Peter was alive at the time of the composition of Mark or not, this discrepancy is not a basis for objection to the theory. Instead, this discrepancy is often cited For example, see this article on [The Gospel of Mark] in defense of the hypothesis because it refutes the argument that that the entire tradition is merely a repetition of Papias's original assertion (ergo, if he were wrong, the great many historical sources supporting the theory would be inconsequential). Instead, slight disagreement is actually in favor of multiple (though near identical) traditions.

Aramaic Matthew and the Church Fathers

An original Aramaic version of Matthew does not exist in the sense that no copy survives in the original language today. However the Augustinian hypothesis holds that the current Greek Mathew is a complete translation of the original Aramaic Matthew. Additionally, the Aramaic Matthew has strong support in the writings of early Christians because a number of Church Fathers wrote on the language of the canonical gospels. Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, Epiphanius and Jerome all agree that the original Matthew was written in Hebrew.For Papias, see Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.39.15. For Irenaeus, see Against Heresies, 3.1. For Origen, see Eusebius, History of the Church, 6.25. For Eusebius and Epiphanisu, see bellow. Jerome even claimed to have seen the original Aramaic Matthew in the library of Pamphilus the Martyr.Jerome, On Illustrious Men Eusebius wrote in c. 325 that Pantaerus found a copy of the Gospel of Matthew written in Hebrew in India, and that it had been left there by Bartholomew. Eusebius. History of the Church, 5.10.3. In c. 376, Epiphanius wrote there was "no doubt" that a sect in Palestine still used the original Hebrew text "just as it was originally written." Epiphanius. Panarion, 29.9.4. And, of course, Augustine also repeated this tradition (see above). To this authors should be added Pantaenus, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others in agreement.

Augustinian Position in Detail

Recently, modern scholars accepting the Augustinian hypothesis, or the similar Griesbach hypothesis, have attempted to develop a detailed argument explaining the theoretical origin of the gospels. There was a perceived need for this in response to recent competing theories, expressed by Bernard Orchard: “the two-document hypothesis and the priority of Mark are still only hypotheses, not infallible dogmas, and they have stood secure for so long chiefly because no one has been able to offer any satisfactory alternative."Bernard Orchard, Matthew, Luke & Mark (Manchester: Koinonia Press, 1976) vii.. The following is a summary of the work of Orchard, Bishop B.C. Butler, Arthur J. Bellinzoni,Arthur J Bellinzoni Jr., The Two-Source Hypothesis: A Critical Apprasial (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1985) Harold Riley,Harold Riley, The Order of the Synoptics, (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987) John A. T. Robinson,John T. A. Robinson: Redating the New Testament (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) Edward Sanders,Edward Sanders,Jesus, the Gospels, and the Church (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987) and William R. FarmerWilliam R. Farmer, New Synoptic Studies (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1983).

The detailed articulation of this position is built upon the assumption that the gospel's development should be understood as a reaction to various developing needs of the early church.Bernard Orchard and Harold Riley, The Order of the Synoptics: Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1987), p275.

The first Christians were almost exclusively Jews in Palestine. The first communities of Christians would have had catechetical and liturgical needs. Furthermore, it would have been of central importance to show that Jesus of Nazareth had fulfilled the Messianic prophecies of the Old Testament. Because the apostles would still have been alive at this time, strict chronology would have been of secondary consideration. Matthew was a tax collector Matthew 10:3, and it is argued that he would have been educated and therefore a natural choice to pen the needed document. Furthermore, persecutions in Palestine, threatening dispersion of the Christians, would have been a motivating factor for a text of the life of Jesus.Cornelius A. Lapide, The Great Commentary on the Scriptures, trans. Thomas W. Mossman, (London: John Hodges, 1893), p 36. Naturally, the text would have been in Aramaic, the language of that community.Kevin Cathcart, Martin McNamara and Michael Maher, eds., The Aramaic Bible: the Targums, vol. 1A, trans. Martin McNamara, (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical, 1992), 14.

Evidence cited in support of this includes: (1) the historical testimony of an Aramaic gospel, (2) the many references within the text to Old Testament Messianic prophecy having been fulfilled by Jesus,e.g. Matthew 1:22-23, c.f. Isaiah 7:14; Matthew 16:16-17, 26:63-64, also see Isaiah 1:3-12 and Psalm 21, 13-22. (3) the failure to explain Jewish customs, expression or terms, laws, and religious rites, e.g. Matthew 5:22, 23:5, et al. (4) the attention to political circumstances in 1st century Judea, e.g. Matthew 14:1 vs. Mark 6(5) emphasis on the tension between Pharisees and other Jewish sects,e.g. Matthew 3:7, 9:14, 16:11, 22:34, et al. (6) the affinity for the topography of Jerusalem, (7) the presence of liturgical elements such as the baptismal formula,Matthew 28:29 the Eucharistic consecration,Matthew 26:26-28 and the Lord’s Prayer,Matthew 6:9-13 (8) catechetical instruments such as explanatory text following difficult parables, and (9) the use of duplicate material. This final point is important to holders of the Augustinian hypothesis, because a central tenant of competing theories (such as the Two-Source hypothesis and Marcan Priority) is that duplicate material entails dependency on two earlier sources. Instead, these scholars argue that catechetical and liturgical needs would result in the same duplication of material within the text

The next phase of the development of Christianity was the expulsion of the Christian from the synagogues and the persecution of Herod Agrippa in A.D 42. The apostles carried Christianity into Greek speaking lands, to Hellenistic Jews, gentile converts to Judaism, and to pagan converts to Christianity. At this time, it is argued, there would have been a need for a Greek text, and Matthew’s Gospel would have been translated into Greek. The use of Septuagint quotations in the Greek text is explained as a device used include renderings familiar to the new audience.

Citing Clement’s and Irenaeus's comments Clement, cited in: Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.39.15. Irenaeus, cited in ibid. 5.8.2 and other historical sources, supporters of the Augustinian hypothesis argue that the Gospel of Mark was written by Mark, a follower of the apostle Peter,1 Pet. 5:12-13 based on his speeches. The striking similarities between the two texts are explained by the suggestion that Peter employed the Gospel of Matthew, in its Greek translation, during his speeches.Bernard Orchard, in [This Article] Possible reasons for this suggested are: (1) to show apostolic approval for the Greek translation, (2) the catechetical structure of the text was of obvious benefit as a framework for speeches, (3) the speeches could have been given within the liturgy, (4) and as a simple speaking aid for someone whose native tongue was not Greek. The importance of this dimension of the theory is that the rustic nature of Mark’s Gospel is often cited by opponents of the Augustinian hypothesis as a reason why it could not be a redaction of the more elegant Gospel of Matthew. Instead, understood as such the rustic nature of the Gospel of Mark would be a reflection of the spoken Greek of Peter, and this is still consistent with a Matthean framework for the text.

Evidence cited in support of this includes: (1) the historical testimony, (2) the similarity of format between Matthew and Mark, (3) the omission of material not easily included in a speech, such as the genealogy, (4) the inclusion of more vivid material where Mark agrees with Matthew,c.f. Mk 1:32 & Mt 8:16, example used in William R. Farmer: The Synoptic Problem , (Macon: Mercer University Press, 1981) chapter 7 (5) the clarification of Jewish terms and explanation of Jewish rites, (6) the omission of some Messianic specific material, and (7) the rustic language of Mark.

There is disagreement among the scholars mentioned above concerning the ordering of Mark and Luke. Some argue that Luke was written after Mark and used both Matthew and Mark as a source. Others argue that Luke was written just after the translation of Matthew and was based on this source, that Peter used both Matthew and Luke in his preaching, and that Mark is hence derived from them both (see: Griesbach hypothesis).

Modern Revival

The Augustinian hypothesis has found renewed attention since the advent of alternate theories concerning the authorship of the Gospels. Scholars consider the two strongest defenders of the Augustinian Hypothesis in the twentieth century to be B. C. Butler and John Wenham. Butler wrote The Originality of St. Matthew: A Critique of the Two-Document Hypothesis (1951). Wenham wrote Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke: A Fresh Assault on the Synoptic Problem which some scholars find has persuasive arguments for the Augustinian view and believe is based on sound historiography.#redirect

Wenham wrote regarding the book of Matthew:

"The [Church] fathers are almost unanimous in asserting that Matthew the tax-collector was the author, writing first, for Hebrews in the Hebrew language… The Medieval Hebrew gospel of Matthew in Even Bohan could be a corrupted version of the original. Though unrivaled, the tradition has been discounted on various grounds, particularly on the supposed unreliability of Papias, from whom some would derive the whole tradition."John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark & Luke (1991), p. 116.

John Robinson advocated views which are complementary to the Augustine view, which are compatible with an early dating of the gospels. Although Robinson was a liberal theologian, he challenged the work of his liberal academic colleagues. Specifically, Robinson examined the New Testament's reliability because he believed that very little original research had been completed in this field in the period between 1900 and the mid 1970s. He wrote in his work Redating the New Testament that past scholarship was based on a "tyranny of unexamined assumptions" and an "almost willful blindness." Robinson concluded that New Testament was written before 64 A.D., and that there is no compelling evidence and little evidence of any kind that anything in the New Testament reflects knowledge of the Temple's destruction which occurred in 70 A.D. Furthermore, in relation to the four gospels, according to the conservative theologian Norman Geisler,

"Robinson places Matthew at 40 to after 60, Mark at about 45 to 60, Luke at before 57 to after 60, and John at from 40 to after 65." [link]

John MacArthur in his work The MacArthur Study Bible which was well received by conservative Christian scholars, argues a number of lines of evidence favoring the Augustinian hypothesis in his introduction to the Gospel of Mark.

References

External links

• [Evaluation of the Theory of Literary Dependence]
• [The Mysterious Case of the Missing Q]
• [Synoptic Problem Website]

 

---

From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia. Original article here. Support Wikipedia by contributing or donating.
All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License See Wikipedia Copyrights for details.

Search Titles

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

J

K

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

U

V

W

X

Y

Z

?