The two-gospel hypothesis is that the Gospel of Matthew was written before the Gospel of Luke , and that both were written earlier than the Gospel of Mark. The hypothesis, following an original proposal by Augustine of Hippo and expanded by Johann Jakob Griesbach it was once called the Griesbach hypothesis , was introduced in its current form by William Farmer in Unlike the two-source hypothesis, the two-gospel hypothesis concludes that the traditional accounts of the gospels order and date of publication, as well as authorship are accurate. David Farnell , that the "two Gospels" were required by the "two witnesses" rule of Deuteronomy. The hypothesis states that Matthew was written first, while Christianity was still centered in Jerusalem , to calm the hostility between Jews and Christians.
|Published (Last):||9 June 2015|
|PDF File Size:||1.29 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||1.36 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
The two-gospel hypothesis is that the Gospel of Matthew was written before the Gospel of Luke , and that both were written earlier than the Gospel of Mark. The hypothesis, following an original proposal by Augustine of Hippo and expanded by Johann Jakob Griesbach it was once called the Griesbach hypothesis , was introduced in its current form by William Farmer in Unlike the two-source hypothesis, the two-gospel hypothesis concludes that the traditional accounts of the gospels order and date of publication, as well as authorship are accurate.
David Farnell , that the "two Gospels" were required by the "two witnesses" rule of Deuteronomy. The hypothesis states that Matthew was written first, while Christianity was still centered in Jerusalem , to calm the hostility between Jews and Christians. After Matthew, as the church expanded beyond the Holy Land , Luke was written as a gospel to the Gentiles. But since neither Luke nor his patron Paul were eyewitnesses of Jesus , Peter gave public testimonies that validated Luke's gospel.
These public speeches were transcribed into Mark's gospel and distributed immediately thereafter, as recorded by the early Church father Irenaeus. Paul then allowed Luke's gospel to be published. The proposal suggests that Matthew was written by the apostle Matthew, probably in the 40s AD.
At the time, the church had yet to extend outside of Jerusalem. The primary political problem within the church community was caused by the fact that Jewish authorities were outright hostile to Jesus and his followers. Matthew wrote his account in order to show that Jesus was actually the fulfillment of what Jewish scripture had prophesied. It, for example, heavily references Jewish scripture and Jewish history.
When Stephen was martyred, as recorded in the Book of Acts , the disciples scattered beyond Jerusalem into Gentile mostly Greek but also Syriac towns. There they began preaching, and a large number of Pagans in Antioch quickly became Christians. By the mid 50s, Paul, who converted and claimed the title of "Apostle to the Gentiles" began to realize the need for a gospel to the Gentiles.
This gospel would have to deemphasize the Mosaic Law and recent Jewish history in order to appeal to Greeks and Romans. Paul commissioned his associate, Luke, who used Matthew, as well as other sources. Once the gospel had been written, Paul delayed its publication. He decided that he needed Peter's public testimony as to its accuracy, since neither Paul nor Luke had known Jesus before his death. Paul asked Peter, who was the leader of the Apostles , to testify that Luke's account was accurate.
According to early church sources, Peter gave a series of speeches to senior Roman army officers. These church sources suggest that Peter was ambivalent when Mark asked him if he could write down the words of the speeches. However, since the Roman officers who heard the speeches liked them, they asked for copies, and so Mark made fifty copies of Peter's speeches. These copies began circulating, and became Mark's gospel. Only after the speeches by Peter were made and Mark's transcriptions began circulating did Paul feel confident enough to publish Luke's gospel.
The two-gospel hypothesis assumes that Peter made sure that his speeches agreed with both Matthew and the still unpublished Luke.
Since Matthew was the primary source for Luke, and Matthew's gospel the only published gospel at the time would have been well known to Peter, he mostly would have preached on the contents of Matthew. Knowing Matthew better than Luke, Peter was more likely to mention details found in Matthew and not Luke than vice versa. This would explain why there are more details found in Mark and Matthew but not Luke than there are details found in Mark and Luke but not Matthew. Peter was giving public speeches as to what he saw, and never intended his speeches to become a full gospel.
This was directly asserted by the early church historians, and explains why there are so few commentaries on Mark as opposed to Matthew, Luke and John until a relatively late date. It appears to have been considered the least important gospel in the early church. Much of the evidence for the two-gospel hypothesis comes from the gospels themselves "internal evidence" , while some of the evidence is found in the testimony of the early church "external evidence".
The early church did not just testify as to who wrote the gospels, in what order, and when they wrote them, it also testified on the specific circumstances surrounding the creation of each gospel.
For example, early church documents claim that Mark's Gospel was created after Mark made fifty copies of a series of speeches that Peter had given in Rome. The external evidence mainly the testimony of the early church is the main difference between the two hypotheses. The two-gospel hypothesis does not dismiss the views of the early church, and makes assumptions based on both the internal and external evidence.
The two-source hypothesis, in contrast, is based on the internal evidence for Marcan priority. This has been explained in the two-source hypothesis as coming from the hypothetical Q document, although by the two-gospel hypothesis, this material was copied by Luke from Matthew, but not testified to by Mark because Peter had not seen it. In addition, it gives a specific reason for the fact that Mark has more in common with Matthew than it does with Luke. By the s, scholars considered the two-source hypothesis to be the unquestioned solution to the synoptic problem.
By the s, however, the consensus had ended, and some scholars claimed that the two-source hypothesis had even been disproven. Subsequently, the two-gospel hypothesis has emerged as the most serious challenger to the two-source hypothesis. The two-gospel theory is more of a conjecture than the two-source hypothesis because, unlike that theory, it depends on the unreliable accounts of the early church.
Since the two-source hypothesis does not accept the conjecture of the early church, it follows from internal evidence such as the shortness of Mark and logic e. The Griesbach hypothesis is similar to the two-gospel hypothesis. However, unlike the two-gospel hypothesis, the Griesbach hypothesis is principally a literary hypothesis. What came to be labeled the Griesbach Hypothesis was already anticipated by the British scholar Henry Owen — , in a piece he published in , and by Friedrich Andreas Stroth — in an article he published anonymously in Johann Jakob Griesbach January 4, — March 24, , to whom this source hypothesis was first accredited, alluded to his conclusion that Matthew wrote the first of the canonical gospels and that Luke, not Mark, made first use of Matthew in composing the second of the canonical gospels in an address celebrating the Easter season at the University of Jena in Griesbach's theory was, therefore, one of direct literary dependence between and among the gospels of Matthew, Luke and Mark, or what German scholars came to call a "utilization hypothesis.
In proposing this hypothesis, Griesbach maintained Matthaean priority, as had Augustine before him, along with every other scholar in the church prior to the late eighteenth century.
Griesbach's main support for his thesis lies in passages where Matthew and Luke agree over and against Mark e. Matthew ; Luke ; Mark , the so-called Minor Agreements. While it is impossible to list all arguments in favor and against the theory, some notable arguments are as follows. A related theory has Luke drawing not directly from Matthew, but from a common source, seen as a proto-Matthew.
This was advanced in the nineteenth century by Wilhelm de Wette and Friedrich Bleek , and more recently revived by Powers. Matthaean priority is also a cornerstone of the Augustinian hypothesis , which, however, has Luke drawing from Mark rather than vice versa. For Griesbach's life and work, including the full text of the cited work in Latin and in English translation, cf. Bernard Orchard and Thomas R. Longstaff ed.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Not to be confused with Two-source hypothesis. Bible portal. Thomas ed. Thomas Three views on the origins of the Synoptic Gospels p, and p "Farnell 's third axiom notes, quoting Linnemann, that the reason for four independent Gospels stems from the legal principle of Deuteronomy b: "[O]n the evidence of two or three witnesses a matter shall be confirmed.
Twenty-six reasons why Jews don't believe in Jesus. Ward Synoptic problem. Two-gospel hypothesis Augustinian hypothesis. Jerusalem school hypothesis. Multi-source hypothesis Hebrew Gospel hypothesis Independence hypothesis. Categories : Synoptic problem Hypotheses Biblical criticism Christian terminology. Hidden categories: All articles with dead external links Articles with dead external links from July Articles with permanently dead external links. Namespaces Article Talk. Views Read Edit View history.
The Griesbach hypothesis is an early 19th-century solution to the synoptic problem. It gives priority to the Gospel of Matthew , portrays the gospel of Luke as based on it, and the gospel of Mark as based on both. This hypothesis was proposed as an alternative to the currently-prevailing theories of Marcan priority and the two-source hypothesis. Griesbach's proposal What came to be labeled the "Griesbach Hypothesis" was already anticipated by the British scholar, Henry Owen , in a piece he published in and by Friedrich Andreas Stroth in an article he published anonymously in Johann Jakob Griesbach January 4, - March 24, , to whom this source hypothesis was first accredited and for whom it was once named, alluded to his conclusion that Matthew wrote the first of the canonical gospels and that Luke, not Mark, made first use of Matthew in composing the second of the canonical gospels in an address celebrating the Easter season at the University of Jena in