Loading...In response to my post on why scholars have long thought that Mark was the first Gospel and that Matthew and Luke copied it for many of their stories (a view called Markan Priority), a blog reader asked how Mark Goodacre’s view of “Editorial Fatigue” contributed to the argument. This is a new argument that Goodacre came up in his extensive work on the Synoptic Problem (the Problem of how/why Matthew, Mark, and Luke have so many agreements, often verbatim, and yet so many disagreements; the standard “solution” by far most widely accepted involves Markan Priority) – a Problem he has researched and taught on for many years of his academic career.
This new argument is widely seen as very persuasive. I didn’t trust myself to summarize and illustrate it, though, and asked Mark (Goodacre!) (a member of the blog, as it turns out) if he could post on it.
He suggested simply giving the full summary of the argument, with illustrations, from his authoritative discussion, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze (The Biblical Seminar, 80; Sheffield Academic Press, 2001). And here it is, in his own words! (This will take two posts)
Mark has graciously agreed to answer any questions you have about it in comments you make.
–
Mark Goodacre is the author of several books, including The Case Against Q, and Thomas and the Gospels.
***************************************************************************
When one writer is copying the work of another, changes are sometimes made at the beginning of an account, which are not sustained throughout. The writer lapses into docile reproduction of his / her source. Like continuity errors in film and television, examples of editorial fatigue are unconscious mistakes, small errors of detail which naturally arise in the course of constructing a narrative. This phenomenon of ‘fatigue’ is thus a tell-tale sign of a writer’s dependence on a source. The best way to explain the phenomenon is to illustrate it. Let us therefore return to one of our examples from triple tradition material, the story of the Leper: Matt 8.1-4 // Mark 1.40-45 // Luke 5.12-16.
In Matthew’s version of the story there are two elements that are difficult to reconcile: many crowds at the beginning of the narrative (8.1) and the charge “See that you say nothing to any one” at the end of it (8.4). A miracle that has been witnessed by many is apparently to be kept secret. This is in contrast to Mark where there are no crowds. The Markan leper meets Jesus privately and the command to silence is coherent.
This odd state of affairs can be explained by the theory of Markan Priority, for which this is therefore evidence. This is what seems to have happened. Matthew has just featured three chapters of largely non-Markan teaching material (Matt. 5-7, the Sermon on the Mount) and here he is returning to triple tradition (Markan) material. He resets the scene by making a characteristic Matthean change, introducing ‘many crowds’ (Matt. 8.1; cf. 4.25, 13.2, 15.30 and 19.2; never found in Mark). But as he goes on in telling the story, docile reproduction of his source, or editorial fatigue, causes him to reproduce a feature not consonant with his new introduction to it. This example is particularly striking in that the “secrecy theme” (“See that you say nothing to any one”) is such a striking and major theme in Mark’s Gospel (e.g. 1.34, 3.12, 5.43, 7.36, 8.30), but is much less common in Matthew. It seems likely that Matthew has made characteristic changes to Mark at the beginning of the pericope, changes that lead the account into inconsistency when Matthew reproduces the characteristically Markan wording at the end of the pericope.
And this is not an isolated example. One that seems similarly persuasive is the story of the Death of John the Baptist (Mark 6.14-29 // Matt. 14.1-12). For Mark, Herod is always ‘king’, four times in the passage (Mark 6.22, 25, 26 and 27). Matthew apparently corrects this to ‘tetrarch’ (Matt. 14.1). This is a good move: Herod Antipas was not a king but a petty dependent prince and he is called ‘tetrarch’ by the Jewish historian Josephus (Antiquities 17. 188; 18. 102, 109, 122). This kind of precision is typical of Matthew. Later, he will specify that Pilate (Mark 15.1, 4, 9, 12, 14, 15, 43, 44) is properly called ‘the governor’ (Matt. 27.2, 11, 14, 15, 21, 27, 28.14), and ‘the high priest’ (Mark 14.53) is ‘Caiaphas the high priest’ (Matt. 26.57). Earlier, in his Birth Narrative, Matthew tells us that Herod the Great is a ‘king’ (2.1, 3) and that Archelaus is not (2.22). More is the shame, then, that Matthew lapses into calling Herod ‘the king’ halfway through the story of John the Baptist’s death (Matt.14.9), in agreement with Mark (6.26).
There is, further, a more serious inconsistency in the same verse. The story in Mark is that Herodias wanted to kill John because she had a grudge against him, ‘But she could not because Herod feared John, knowing that he was a righteous and holy man, and he protected him. When he heard him, he was greatly perplexed; and yet he liked to listen to him.’ (Mark 6.19-20). In Matthew’s version of the story, this element has dropped out: now it is Herod and not Herodias who wants him killed (Matt 14.5). When Mark, then, speaks of Herod’s ‘grief’ at the request for John’s head, it is coherent and understandable: Herodias demanded something that Herod did not want. But when Matthew in parallel speaks of the king’s grief (Matt 14.9), it makes no sense at all. Matthew had told us, after all, that ‘Herod wanted to put him to death’ (14.5).
The obvious explanation for the inconsistencies of Matthew’s account is that he is working from a source. He has made changes in the early stages which he fails to sustain throughout, thus betraying his knowledge of Mark. This is particularly plausible when one notes that Matthew’s account is considerably shorter than Mark’s: Matthew has overlooked important details in the act of abbreviating.
[Tomorrow’s post will illustrate fatigue from the Gospel of Luke as well]
If you were a member of the blog, you would get meaty posts like this five times a week. That week would cost you only fifty cents. You get tons for your money, and every cent goes to charity. So why not join???
What a coincidence! I was just going to ask a similar question to the following question on the guest post about John the Baptist.
Do you have any thoughts on why John the Baptist is unworthy to undo the sandals of Jesus, but Luke and John allow a sinful woman to cry on/anoint his feet and dry them with her hair?
I guess he feels unworthy and she doesn’t! But the point of the former is that John *recognizes* Jesus superiority; the second ia about how Jesus welcomes repentance.
Mark (Goodacre), what are common arguments that people make in an effort to discredit Editorial Fatigue as a defense of Markan Priority? I’ve supported the idea since I first came across it, but there are still contrarians who want to argue that Mark copied from Matthew and/or Luke and quite a few other complicated alternatives as well. I believe the author of the Anchor Bible commentary on Matthew tried this? Thanks!
Mark, that is really interesting. Thanks for letting Bart post this. Looking forward to the next installment.
Can Bart or Mark Goodacre say something about the style of Mark the gospel writer? I’ve read that the earliest gospel has a “crude” style in that Mark uses the unsophisticated “immediately” (the Greek adverb euthus) to join episodes. On the other hand, the Markan Sandwich seems very sophisticated. I can’t read Greek, so I can’t judge Mark’s style. Is Mark eloquent, or is Mark’s Greek like the writing of a high school student? Is one gospel writer’s style like, say, Hemingway? Is Luke’s style more elegant and therefore more like, say, Jane Austen or Dickens?
When I saw this title, I thought we had a guest-blogger to relieve Bart’s “editorial fatigue”!
Thanks for this arbument, makes sense and hence broadens the mind.
Yup, you got it!!!
Dr. Goodacre, thank you for contributing to the blog.
Prof Goodacre –
Thank you for this – and in advance for tackling reader questions! Very much looking forward to the next post as well as all the interesting discussion these two blog entries will likely engender.
Question: In isolation from other Markan priority arguments, what is your opinion on how one best balances applying this (very compelling) fatigue argument on the one hand against the “harder reading is likelier” argument on the other? To this non-scholar, they would seem to point in opposite directions here (in the absence of other supporting arguments).
Many thanks!
N.B. I wasn’t yet a blog member during your substantial contributions to the Garrow-on-Matthew debate. Please accept belated-but-much appreciation for doing that – was really great.
Dr Ehrman –
Editorial fatigue seems to be the inverse of the harder-read-is-likelier criterion. Are there any rules of thumb one can apply to determine which is likelier correct in a given instance?
Overly simplistic example within one specific story/tradition:
Text 1: A, B, C and D (details cohere)
Text 2: A*, B*, C and D (details do not entirely cohere)
* = signifies a similar but different version of textual chunk
Under the fatigue rubric: Text 1 is deemed the source
Under the harder-read rubric: Text 2 is deemed the source
Thanks much!
Most interesting. As I’ve studied the Bible over the years I have noticed little quirks like this, but did not have an explanation like this. Looking forward to examples from Luke.
Excellent summary of your argument. Thank you for sharing it with us Professor Goodacre.
You can see this in the accounts of Jesus’ baptism as well.
Mark says Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordan, and then he (he personally) saw the heavens torn open, the Holy Spirit descending upon him, and only he heard God’s voice saying he was God’s son–a personal revelation. It’s not even a long paragraph, and is there only to show that Jesus is God’s adopted son, now that he’s been cleansed of his sins (whether before or during the baptism).
Matthew has John protest that Jesus needs to be baptized by him, and Jesus makes a rather weak argument as to why it needs be done this way. Matthew keeps Mark’s language, but rewrites it–God is now speaking to all assembled–“This is my son” not “You are my son.” A proclamation, not a personal revelation.
But now Matthew has created a problem Mark’s gospel does not have. People would know John the Baptist never became a follower of Jesus, that even after his death he still had a cult that rivaled that of Jesus, and did not follow Jesus. If John had accepted Jesus as his superior, why would this happen?
So Mark has MORE material about John later, to try and substantiate Jesus’ primacy. But that just confuses matters further. Why is John questioning the man he said should baptize him? And why is Jesus saying no man born of woman is greater than John? I don’t think Matthew made that up, but he’s trying to use other accounts to bolster the first one. Mark would probably have used the story of John querying Jesus from prison if he’d known it. It would have fit his narrative very well. Even the man who baptized Jesus fails to understand him. The absence of that story from Mark indicates Mark doesn’t have it, and that means Mark never read Matthew.
Mark doesn’t show any great need to subordinate John to Jesus, though he clearly thinks Jesus is greater. Both were men of faith, and God chose Jesus to be Messiah, because his faith was greater. For Matthew and Luke, Jesus must be utterly unique from his very conception. Only John’s gospel ‘fixes’ the problem by retelling the story from scratch, and getting rid of the baptism altogether.
Very interesting. Thanks so much for the post. Do you think “editorial fatigue” tells us anything about “inspiration” or about books being the “Word of God’? This is not meant to be sarcastic. I am serious.
Does the fact of Markan priority have any relevance to the question of why John the Baptist was put to death – e.g. Herodias’ grudge vs. simply the fact that John was attracting large crowds, and apparently symbolically reenacting the crossing of the Jordan into the promised land? It seems that historically, the latter would be the more plausible, since its politically subversive meaning would have been quite apparent to Herod, and the large following he was attracting equally problematic for the Romans.
I was just wondering whether any historical kernel can be gleaned from the Gospel accounts in this regard, or if we need to look to other sources – e.g. Josephus – for the explanation.
Mark,
I agree that the John-the-Baptist pericope appears to exhibit editorial fatigue, but one thing I find odd is that that Matthew uses a different Greek word for “grief” than does Mark. It’s not as though Matthew is unfamiliar with Mark’s word for “grief,” for Matthew uses it in Matthew 26:38. (In Matthew 26:38 and Mark 6:26, the NRSV says “deeply grieved.”) If Matthew were lapsing into “docile reproduction,” why would he change the Greek word? And since he was cognizant enough to do that, why wouldn’t he remove the inconsistency and say that Herod was “glad,” or something like that?
Dr Ehrman,
This Markan Priority thread is incredible! Thank you. I can’t believe I enjoy this textual discussion so much!
The story of the leper may also exhibit Marcan priority—though not fatigue—in Matthew and Luke’s omission of Jesus’ “anger” at the leper (Mark 1:41). Do you agree that using the principle of lectio difficilior potior, “anger” is more likely than “pity” to be the original reading? If so, why would Mark record that Jesus was angry at a man begging to be healed?
Hi Mark, I think editorial fatigue is a very good indicator of secondary work but I think Matthew was written first and Mark edited Matthew when writing his gospel.
Do you think Mark’s claim that 6:20 “Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man” contradicts Mark 6:17 “For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison” is a good counter-example of editorial fatigue in Mark?
Also re the fatigue in Matthew – Matthew’s gospel claims Herod wanted to kill John but did not want the stigma associated with being a prophet killer (Josephus claimed this was the reason for Herods defeat in battle). Its the classic “will no-one rid me of this turbulent priest”. Herod’s grief or regret in Matthew is due to the realisation that he will in fact have to become a prophet-killer to fulfill his promise to Herodias’s daughter. Do you think this makes the argument of fatigue in Matthew weaker than the fatigue in Mark?
I think you’re neglecting the rather obvious fact that Mark might be copying sources that existed before any of the gospels we have, which are not available to us. There could be editorial fatigue in Mark that has nothing to do with Matthew or Luke.
It makes sense Herod Antipas, whose position was anything but secure (too much unrest and the Romans might remove him), would be hesitant to kill or imprison a popular religious figure, would need substantial provocation in order to do so.
Mark may have been writing for a more elite audience than Matthew, people who were more familiar with past events. Matthew may feel the need to add explanations Mark never bothered to provide–a gloss, if you will–because he’s writing for an audience that is increasingly gentile, largely uneducated, and obviously unfamiliar with Jewish politics from decades earlier. So that again is him editing Mark, who in turn is splicing together various stories he has from sources we can’t read now. To use Goodacre’s methodology, you have to work from texts you actually have.
(I’m still waiting, incidentally, for you to explain why Mark would edit out all the stories from Q, if he had them right there in Matthew and Luke.)
In any event, I understand the argument Mark Goodacre is making, but yours seems rather obscure, and geared largely towards pushing a pet theory.
(And I kind of did the same thing myself–you really need to know the texts inside out to compare them properly.)
**I think you’re neglecting the rather obvious fact that Mark might be copying sources that existed before any of the gospels we have, which are not available to us …**
Yes this will always be possible with any theory on the synoptic problem. The point here is that Matthew would fit the requirement for a previous gospel if this example of editorial fatigue is accepted in Mark and there’d be no need to posit another gospel.
**It makes sense Herod Antipas, whose position was anything but secure (too much unrest and the Romans might remove him), would be hesitant to kill or imprison a popular religious figure, would need substantial provocation in order to do so.**
Yes this is Matthew’s narrative. Its Mark that tells us Herod protected John knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. Strange considering Jesus later tells us to beware the yeast of Herod.
**It makes sense Herod Antipas, whose position was anything but secure (too much unrest and the Romans might remove him), would be hesitant to kill or imprison a popular religious figure, would need substantial provocation in order to do so.**
Whoever is writing for the more gentile audience is the most likely to be written second. Matthew is agreed to be the most Jewish of the gospels and Mark removes some clearly difficult lines for a gentile audience eg Matthew’s “I have only been sent to the lost sheep of Israel”
**I’m still waiting, incidentally, for you to explain why Mark would edit out all the stories from Q, if he had them right there in Matthew and Luke.**
I think Matthew wrote first, the Luke wrote using Matthew,then Mark wrote using both Luke and Mark. No need for a Q gospel. Mark left out the nativity because he didn’t believe it was true, the sermon on the mount because of its emphasis on the law.
**In any event, I understand the argument Mark Goodacre is making, but yours seems rather obscure, and geared largely towards pushing a pet theory.**
But its the same structure of argument – Mark Goodacre thinks there’s a contradiction in Matthew when Herod grieves upon learning he’ll have to kill John despite saying earlier he wanted to kill John, which there isn’t.
I say there’s a contradiction in Mark when he says Herod protected John despite saying earlier Herod had John arrested bound and put in prison, which there *is*.
You never heard of protective custody? 🙂
You’re judging Herod by modern standards, and I suppose we can see the same personality type in power today, but even so–not killing him when he’s openly speaking against Herod, and members of Herod’s court want John dead, is a form of protection, even if it’s largely motivated by fear of a backlash if John is killed–perhaps even fear of God’s retribution. The fates of rulers in the Old Testament who lay their hands on prophets is generally pretty dire. Herod wasn’t a very good Jew, but basically everyone was superstititious then.
I’ve studied a lot of history, and this all sounds quite plausible to me–this is often how tyrants behave, when trying to deal with a charismatic popular troublemaker like John–try to get him to back down, dissuade him from speaking out–before using the ultimate dissuader. See if a bit of time in a cell will cool his ardor. Not the least bit inconsistent. This isn’t a good example of editorial fatigue, and having done some reading up, I’m not convinced editorial fatigue is one of the stronger arguments for Mark’s priority. Just a back-up argument, that works better in some instances than others.
I see so much in the Q stories that would appeal to Mark, further his theme–if he cut out certain stories, that would be one thing–he cuts EVERYTHING out, and the stories he cuts out are stories that would come along later in the development of Christianity.
The fact that he leaves ALL that material out makes it very clear he never had it, which means he never had Matthew or Luke. Anyway, if Mark wasn’t a source for Matthew and Luke (as most scholars agree is the case), then nearly everything is in the synoptics is Q.
The harder you try to back this up, the more problems you create, which tends to argue for this being a bad theory.
Mark and Matthew both agree Herod had the power of life and death over John – there’s no-one to protect John from except Herod. But according to Mark, John has nothing to fear from Herod because Herod “protected John knowing him to be a righteous and Holy man”. Mark’s Herod doesnt think John is troublemaker – Matthew’s Herod does.
“Herod had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison.” these are actions of someone who thinks John is a troublemaker – Matthew’s Herod; not the actions of someone who thinks John is a righteous and holy man – Mark’s Herod.
*The fates of rulers in the Old Testament who lay their hands on prophets is generally pretty dire.* Yes very true but this is Matthew’s explanation not Mark’s. There’s just an clear error in Mark’s account here.
There are clearly errors in all the accounts we have from this period, and not just relating to Jesus. Josephus makes some pretty significant errors in chronology–who was he editing?
I just don’t see how this proves your point. Nor does it seem hard to understand how Herod might have hesitated to kill or imprison a charismatic popular preacher. He would only do so if he felt he had no other choice. John seems to have intentionally pushed the envelope, gone out of his way to provoke Herod into retaliating–which is interesting–since Jesus seems to have done the same thing later on, with the Jewish authorities, and less directly, the Romans.
Regardless of whether Mark or Matthew is closer to the historical truth of Herod’s attitude towards John–and as of this time, we can’t determine that with any certainty–it doesn’t prove Mark edited Matthew. It could just as easily prove the opposite. Matthew is REMOVING something from Mark’s account. Editing doesn’t mean adding, as a general rule.
Can you really not imagine some reason Mark may have had for being more diplomatic about Herod? Let me see–the Herodian dynasty ended in 92CE with the death of Agrippa II–hmm! That wasn’t too hard. The later gospel would be less concerned with offending a powerful family–that ceased to have any real power shortly before the end of the First Century. To be sure, probably none of the gospel authors were under that dynasty’s direct authority, but people like that have powerful friends all over the place. No version of the story casts them in a favorable light, of course. But Matthew is far more scathing–indicating that he’s not worried about any repercussions at all.
That’s just a guess, but it does provide a bit of historical context.
Which your arguments have mainly lacked.
The argument is not about historical or chronological errors – its about internal consistency. Mark’s self-contradiction requires an explanation and a good explanation is that he has made a minor edit to Matthew’s account which has not been consistently applied throughout the rest of Mark’s copying of Matthew.
This is the argument Mark Goodacre is making with respect to Markan priority but the problem is Matthew hasn’t contradicted himself in this passage – Mark has.
**Can you really not imagine some reason Mark may have had for being more diplomatic about Herod?**
Yes there’s probably lots of reason’s why Mark would be more diplomatic about Herod. The problem is he has not consistently applied this diplomacy throughout the Herod and John the Baptist passage. Matthew’s original anti-Herodian account shows through.
I definitely see fatigue operating once these examples are pointed out! Are there other types of issues that arise due to fatigue besides failing to keep the story consistent? I have no idea what there could be, just want to ask so I can be aware of them!
Thank you for posting!
Mark – fab post and really glad you’re engaging with this.
May I ask a couple of cheeky off-topic questions? If Joel Marcus and Bart Ehrman were to debate a subject of shared expertise:
1. Who do you think would win?
2. Who would you like to win?
Fascinating! Dr. Goodacre, or Bart, is this the first critical approach that .. gets into the mechanics editing and transcribing?
I suppose it depends on what you mean by mechanics. The process and strategies of copying have always been central to the Synoptic Problem.
Hello Dr. Goodacre, I’ve read the explanation of why Markan prority is mostly accepted, but I do not know what is the rationale that apologist use to defend the tradition that it was Mathew the first to be written. How do they try to defend that position?
But wouldn’t Matthew have picked up the inconsistency on re-reading his text and corrected it?
In the story of the demon possessed man in Mark and Luke, Luke tells us the man hadn’t worn clothes for many years. Mark instead says the man couldnt be bound by chains. However they both tell us the man was found clothed and in his right mind by the townspeople after being healed by Jesus.
In the story of the leaven of the pharisees in Mark and Matthew, Matthew tells us the disciples forgot to bring any bread. Mark has the same but with the throwaway line “except for one loaf they had with them in the boat”. Both Matthew and Mark have the disciples ask themselves later “is it because we didn’t bring any bread”.
Do you think these are good counter-examples of editorial fatigue against Markan priority?
Again, there was a loaf already in the boat, which Jesus is saying could be multiplied as were the loaves and fishes. They didn’t bring it, but they still had it. That’s not fatigue at work. Matthew is just failing to fully understand the story he’s copying, or prefers to put a different spin on it.
The fact that Mark doesn’t tell us the demoniac is naked when possessed doesn’t remotely imply the man was clothed. How would he be clothed, when he was chained, cutting himself, and nobody dared come near him, for a long time? People in this condition would generally be in a state of undress or near-undress.
Undressed doesn’t necessarily mean stark naked in this context–in a state of indecency, which could just mean raggedness. You wouldn’t need to tell people he wasn’t properly dressed when in that state. It is Luke’s editorial choice to spell out what was already implicit.
Luke adds it for clarity, but it’s not necessary. Please note, though, he starts by making a few slight changes, then goes back to the original ending.
Incidentally, how do you explain that in ‘editing’ Matthew and/or Luke’s version of this story, Mark made it significantly longer? Your point seems to be that Mark is the Reader’s Digest version of the gospel. So why even bring this up, when it doesn’t fit the pattern Prof. Goodacre has described?
I note you don’t bring up Matthew’s radically different (and really short) version, where it’s two possessed men in a different location, and Jesus never asks for the demon’s name?
You could make a case for Mark being last in that his account is the most detailed, but that doesn’t fit the argument you’re making. And it doesn’t really ring true, because Mark’s account feels of a piece in a way the other two do not. However, I will say Matthew’s account does not seem to be closely copied from Mark, and may be based on a different version of the same story. (And a more plausible one, in some respects.)
But Mark’s is the best-written by far, whatever the order.
“Again, there was a loaf already in the boat, which Jesus is saying could be multiplied as were the loaves and fishes.”
But Jesus doesnt say this youre reading it into the passage. “the yeast of the pharisees and Herod” “how many loaves. Seven! Twelve!” these lines arent to be taken literally. Seven and twelve have some deep theological significance. Jesus asks them “do they still not understand?” The passage is not about a miracle of turning one loaf into many. Its about the teaching of Jesus compared to the pharisees. The line about the one loaf is irrelevant. They have no bread but Jesus isnt talking about feeding anyone.
**The fact that Mark doesn’t tell us the demoniac is naked when possessed doesn’t remotely imply the man was clothed.**
Gospel A tells us the demon possessed man couldnt be chained. Gospel B tells us the man hadnt worn clothes for many years. Both gospels later tell us he was found after being healed “dressed and in his right mind”. This is evidence for editorial fatigue in gospel A. Of course you can give reasons why gospel A was written the way it was but this will be true for all examples of editorial fatigue. Did Luke add it in because Mark had left it out? possibly. Did Mark add something in because Matthew had left something out? possibly.
**Incidentally, how do you explain that in ‘editing’ Matthew and/or Luke’s version of this story, Mark made it significantly longer?**
Editing just in the sense of making changes to it. Mark took out lots from Matthew but also tried to write the stories in his own way. His editing brought in some awkward grammar and occasionally some outright contradictions.
**You could make a case for Mark being last in that his account is the most detailed, but that doesn’t fit the argument you’re making**
I think the order is Matthew, Luke, Mark
**However, I will say Matthew’s account does not seem to be closely copied from Mark, and may be based on a different version of the same story. (And a more plausible one, in some respects.)**
Yes I agree!
**But Mark’s is the best-written by far, whatever the order.**
It may subjectively be the best written but that doesnt help in deciding which came first. Someone writing third with two gospels in front of him may be in a position to write the best version.
No, it’s the other way around. Matthew and Luke are trying to create a blend of many different ideas, a compendium of different traditions and ideas, and it’s often unwieldy. Mark’s vision is purer, and less bothered by the need to make Jesus increasingly divine–a view that prevailed more and more over time. So it makes more sense that Mark’s more human Jesus is an earlier version.
Basically, all you’re doing is reversing the arguments made by professional scholars (you’re clearly not one). Mark’s poor grammar is evidence of him rewriting Matthew and Luke. It’s evidence that he came first, at a time when there were still few literate Christians, let alone those who could write good Greek.
I’m curious to know why you want to believe this so badly. But then I’m curious about all the people who keep trying to prove Shakespeare didn’t write Shakespeare. There’s been centuries of those, you know.
And Shakespeare still wrote Shakespeare, and that’s never going to change.
You’re confusing Matthew’s later idea of what the story is about with the true meaning–of course it’s about food. Matthew bitterly hates the Jewish religious authorities (an attitude that came much later), so he replaces the reference to Herod (the first real threat to Jesus, and the man who killed Jesus’ teacher John) with one to the Sadducees, who Jesus hasn’t even had any run-ins with yet.
That’s the tell–Herod is still a major threat to Jesus when he’s in Galilee, where Herod is in charge. Jesus would be thinking about Herod, more than the Sadducees, whose authority is in Jerusalem. Matthew is taking a story about faith, and making it a story about hate. He does that a lot. The angriest gospel.
*You’re confusing Matthew’s later idea of what the story is about with the true meaning–of course it’s about food. *
But its clearly not about food. “Do you still not see or understand? Are your hearts hardened? Do you have eyes but fail to see, and ears but fail to hear?” is a reference to Mark 4:11/12 where parables are given to the masses but the secrets of the kingdom of god are revealed only to the disciples.
Jesus talks about the “yeast of the pharisees and Herod” but the secret meaning of this should be understand by the disciples. “why are you talking about not having any loaves, do you still not understand?” Jesus says, ie he’s not talking about bread. The original coherent version of the passage is found in Matthew.
*That’s the tell–Herod is still a major threat to Jesus when he’s in Galilee, where Herod is in charge. Jesus would be thinking about Herod, more than the Sadducees, whose authority is in Jerusalem.*
But according to Mark Herod isn’t a threat to Jesus. He thought John was righteous and holy man and was only tricked into killing him. There’s nothing in Mark to suggest Herod is a threat to Jesus,only in Matthew.
*Matthew is taking a story about faith, and making it a story about hate.*
Matthew’s story is about the teaching of the pharisees and sadducees – which the disciples should be wary of – hypocrisy according to Luke. Its contrasted to the teaching of Jesus which is the incorruptible bread of heaven.
Hi Mark, great stuff. Thank you for your detailed work on this. Just curious, it’s easier to see these examples of editorial fatigue in Matthew and Luke when we have their major source (Mark) extant for us. Are you able to spot or suspect examples of possible editorial fatigue in Mark without us having an extant source for Mark?… maybe places where something seems inconsistent or incoherent, possibly due to Mark’s editorial fatigue?
Btw, on the incoherent use of “king” in Mt 14.9, I find it interesting that some Vetus Latina mss have “rex Herodis” (and it’s not due to the parallel verse in Mk 8.26 in those mss). So they clarify who is “rex”… without correcting “rex” to “tetrarch” as they have in Mt 14.1.
Many thanks to both of you for writing the guest post and for asking for the guest post.
1. I can’t help but be amazed at the implications for the Holy Spirit being the “true” author of the gospels. I’ve done color coding in a synopsis (english, of course), and I find editorial fatique a particularly compelling argument. *mind blown*
2. Have you SEEN the prices for your book on Amazon lol?
“Mark has graciously agreed to answer any questions you have about it in comments you make.”
Is Professor Goodacre still able to do this?
He’s willing. We’ll see if he’s able!
Several of the supposed examples of editorial fatigue seem unpersuasive to me (especially in Luke), but since I accept Markan priority on other grounds, I’m not particularly motivated to argue.
But I can’t help being reminded of an incident in my school days where a teacher suspected me of copying a source because I referred to this or that chapter, where my assignment did not contain chapters. In fact I had not copied my source, and was simply using the word “chapter” to mean “section”, a distinction that was not formally taught.
(I was good enough at writing that teachers suspected me of copying more than once, simply because my prose was of a quality that _might_ have been professionally published — such are the crosses we bear.)