The Augustinian hypothesis (sometimes referred to as the Augustinian Proposal) is a solution to the synoptic problem, which concerns the origin of the canonical Gospels in the New Testament. The hypothesis holds that Matthew was written first, by Matthew the Evangelist (see the Gospel According to the Hebrews and the Jewish-Christian Gospels). Mark the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Mark second and used Matthew and the preaching of Peter as sources. Luke the Evangelist wrote the Gospel of Luke and was aware of the two Gospels that preceded him. Unlike some competing hypotheses, this hypothesis does not rely on, nor does it argue for, the existence of any document that is not explicitly mentioned in historical testimony. Instead, the hypothesis draws primarily upon historical testimony, rather than textual criticism, as the central line of evidence. The foundation of evidence for the hypothesis is the writings of the Church Fathers: historical sources dating back to as early as the first half of the 2nd century, which have been held as authoritative by most Christians for nearly two millennia. Adherents to the Augustinian hypothesis view it as a simple, coherent solution to the synoptic problem.
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 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 Q hypothesis, the Farrer hypothesis, and others.
The main two areas of contention within the Augustinian community are whether Matthew was originally written in the Aramaic language using Hebrew script (see Aramaic primacy), or if the Greek text is the original, and whether it was Mark or Luke who wrote second. A modified version of the Augustinian hypothesis, known as the Griesbach hypothesis, agrees that Matthew wrote first and that Mark depended on Matthew, and does not dispute that the original text was in Hebrew thereafter translated into Greek, but argues that Mark also depended on Luke and therefore that Luke's gospel precedes Mark's. Because of the similarity on primary points of contention, this hypothesis is also treated as a possible amendment to the Augustinian hypothesis.
Origin
The hypothesis takes its name from Augustine of Hippo, an early 5th-century Christian theologian, Church Father, and bishop from Roman Africa, 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." And: "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, Book 1 chapter 2 paragraph 4. from
Mark was famously dubbed by Augustine as pedissequus et breviator Matthaei ("the attendant and abbreviator of Matthew"), in direct contrast to the view most commonly held in academia today, that Mark's gospel was the earliest. 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 is the earliest extant 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.
Ancient tradition
The Church Fathers who wrote about the order and authorship of the canonical Gospels all supported some basic ideas of the Augustinian hypothesis. The fathers whose writings survive and who wrote about authorship are almost unanimous in agreement that Matthew the apostle was the author, wrote first, and did so for the Hebrews in their language.John Wenham, Redating Matthew, Mark, and Luke, (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991) p116. A number of sources in antiquity asserted that Mark wrote his Gospel after Matthew 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, Ecclesiastical History, 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 until 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 and others.
The text of the Gospel itself circulated with a title "According to Matthew", a tradition indisputably acknowledged before the close of the 2nd century.Donald Guthrie, New Testament Introduction (Leicester: Apollos, 1961) p43. In addition, the title "According to Matthew" is found in the earliest manuscripts.Nestle-Aland. Novum Testamentum Graece. 27th ed. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Druck: 1996. p.1 A number of scholars have argued that the title must be dated no later than 125.e.g. J.H. Ropes, The Synoptic Gospels (1934) p103; N.B. Stonehouse, Origins of the Synoptic Gospels (1963) p16; et al. Many contemporary scholars, however, believe it was originally anonymous.
The earliest surviving references to the gospel tradition are quoted by Eusebius (lived c. 263–339 CE), and different but related traditions appear in the works of Papias (wrote during the first half of 2nd century CE) and the works of Clement. A third ancient source, Irenaeus, also provides further information about the traditions, especially that of Papias, and possibly adds a third related tradition to the sources. These related traditions generally agree on the primary points of contention within the Augustinian hypothesis, though not without discrepancies. Rather than seen as a refutation to the hypothesis, instead these discrepancies are often cited in defense of the hypothesise.g. see this article on The Gospel of Mark because they counter the argument that the entire tradition is merely a repetition of Papias's original assertion (therefore, if he were wrong, the great many historical sources supporting the theory would be inconsequential). Instead, slight disagreement is actually in favor of multiple, near identical traditions.
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." The benefit of historical immediacy, as argued by D. H. Fischer is 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 that: "Matthew compiled the sayings in the Hebrew language, and everyone translated them as well he could."cited in: Eusebius, History of the Church, 3.39.15. (The 'Hebrew language' referred to by Papias has often been interpreted as Aramaic.)
It has been argued, because Papias does not cite an authority for his assertions concerning Matthew but does concerning Mark, that Matthew was already fully accepted at the time of his writings.for this and a full discussion of other arguments, see R.P. Martin, New Testament Foundations vol. 1 (1975) pp238-240.
Clement Eusebius also recorded an important tradition from Clement of Alexandria (died c. 213):
This source claims multiple authorities of antiquity, not merely Papias; this is taken as evidence against the view that the testimony of the Fathers is based solely upon the witness of Papias. Furthermore the tradition of Clement concurs with the significant point of contention: Matthean priority. However, Clement conflicts with the Augustinian hypothesis concerning the order of Mark and Luke. The Griesbach hypothesis attempts to resolve the difficulty concerning this secondary point of contention by stating Luke wrote before Mark.
Irenaeus Irenaeus, who was familiar with the work of Papias and who knew Polycarp and possibly even the apostle John, wrote: "Now Matthew published also a book of the Gospel among the Hebrews in their own dialect, while Peter and Paul were preaching the gospel in Rome and founding the Church."
He is quoted by Eusebius as saying:Eusebius, Church History, Book V, "Chapter 8. The Statements of Irenæus in regard to the Divine Scriptures.", 1–5.
found in:
which lists its source as:
Irenaeus gives here another tradition in accord with Papias, though containing more information. This has been taken as evidence of a third, yet harmonious tradition.e.g. J. Munck in Neotestamentica at Patristica (ed. W.C. van Unnik, 1962) p257. However, Irenaeus places the composition of Mark after Peter's death, while Clement (and others, such as Origen and Eusebius) claimed Peter was alive and approved the work. Nonetheless, his chronology of the composition of the books does accord with the Augustinian hypothesis (which does not directly address whether Peter was alive at the time of the composition of Mark).
An original Aramaic version of Matthew does not exist in the sense that no copy survives in the original language today. Many proponents of the Augustinian hypothesis hold that the current Greek Matthew is a complete translation of the original Aramaic Matthew. This theory has strong support in a number of Church Fathers. 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 below. 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. To these authors should be added Pantaenus, Athanasius, John Chrysostom, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory of Nazianzus, and others in agreement. However, most modern scholars believe Matthew was originally composed in Greek (see Aramaic New Testament hypotheses and Hebrew Gospel hypothesis).
Augustinian revival