20 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
20 lines
3.7 KiB
Markdown
---
|
|
title: "Augustinian hypothesis"
|
|
chunk: 3/4
|
|
source: "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augustinian_hypothesis"
|
|
category: "reference"
|
|
tags: "science, encyclopedia"
|
|
date_saved: "2026-05-05T09:59:02.720328+00:00"
|
|
instance: "kb-cron"
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
The Augustinian position, and the similar Griesbach hypothesis, has drawn recent interest, especially from B. C. Butler, John Wenham, W.R. Farmer, and others as an alternative solution to the synoptic problem, and has been employed as a scholarly refutation of Marcan priority, the Q hypothesis, and the two-source hypothesis.
|
|
Butler argued that accepting the priority of Matthew rendered it possible to dispense with the hypothetical Q document altogether, a position he supported by arguments concerning the inadmissibility of appealing to Q as a sound explanation of the cases where Matthew appears to be more original than Mark.
|
|
Likewise it has been pointed out that differences between the Synoptic Gospels are as easily explained by differing purposes of the authors than by forced redactions or omissions due to ignorance. Furthermore, against certain arguments that the “primitiveness” of the ideas within the Gospels is the determining factor in their literary interdependence, it is observed that defining "primitiveness" carries obvious difficulties.
|
|
Farmer argued that a modification of the Augustinian hypothesis, the so-called Two-gospel hypothesis, ordering Matthew-Luke-Mark, eliminated all reasons for the existence of Q, a position whose credibility was conceded by W.C. Allen and others. Bernard Orchard also developed the Two-gospel hypothesis and suggested a plausible historic scenario that merged its ideas with the historic evidence that underlines the Augustinian hypothesis.
|
|
|
|
=== Modern position in detail ===
|
|
Recently, modern scholars accepting some form of the Augustinian 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." Central to this process is the assumption that the gospel's development should be understood as a reaction to various developing needs of the early church.
|
|
John Wenham argued that, in the early Jerusalem Church, there would have been an early need for the production of a written record to augment the "atmosphere of spontaneity" within which the apostles, disciples, and eyewitnesses would have given instruction. The reasons for this, he asserted, were: the need for instruction when no qualified teacher was available, the need for consistency and accuracy in what was taught as it spread throughout the first scattered Christian communities, and for the basic need of evangelization. Wenham also argued that Matthew was a natural choice since, as a tax collector, he would have had the requisite literacy, as well as his first hand memories, and perhaps even notes. Others have observed that persecutions in Palestine, threatening dispersion of the Christians, would have been a motivating factor for a text of the life of Jesus.
|
|
The majority Hebrew makeup of the primitive Church has been seen as support of Aramaic primacy. Besides the traditional material (see above), other support for an Aramaic Matthew advanced in recent years includes the theory that the Medieval Hebrew gospel of Matthew in Even Bohan could be a corrupted version of the original.
|
|
Bernard Orchard identified the above period as a "first phase" of the development of the Gospels, distinguished from the subsequent phase by the events of the year 42: |