Robert said

1. Why do you assume that Luke is not aware of the changes in order that he is making? That seems like a bizarre assumption.

2. Do you expect him to say something like, “Hey, everybody, I am consciously changing the order of these stories as found previously in the gospel of Mark (or Matthew) so now this is the first meeting of these characters and not what you might have previously thought was the first meeting of these characters.”

3. There is no indication in Luke’s text that this is the first meeting of Jesus and Simon. Quite the contrary! He has already recounted Jesus going to Simon’s home. I suspect Chapter 5 only reads like an introduction to you because you want to stress that Matthew’s account must be true or primary and that Luke did not realize what he was doing in changing the order.

4. Why do you want to assume that Luke may have made an error in choosing to change the order of pericopes? Why can’t he merely be deciding to tell his story the way that he wants to tell it? Doesn’t every author possess some authorial authority?

I think what we should do is look at how Luke normally introduces new characters and check if the introduction of Simon matches this pattern.

Luke always introduces new characters with a brief description – Zechariah is a priest belonging to the division of Abijah, Elizabeth is his wife a descendant of Aaron, Mary is a virgin pledged to be married to a man named Joseph a descendant of Aaron, Simeon of Jerusalem was religious and devout waiting the consolation of Israel, Anna was a prophet of the tribe of Asher, John is the son of Zechariah preaching in the wilderness, John and James are the sons of Zebedee and partners of Simon, Levi is a tax collector sitting at his booth.

But where is Simon’s description in his introduction? Luke 4:38 “Jesus left the synagogue and went to the home of Simon.” The verse assumes the introduction/description has already been given – (because in the original gospel, whether the original is Mark’s or Matthew’s, it had been given.)

So do you want to say Goodacre uses the argument of editorial fatigue correctly in support of Lukan editing of Matthew but incorrectly in support of Luke’s editing of Mark? That seems rather arbitrary. I think he merely uses it a way of defending inconsistent editing of Matthew by Luke. His grounds for Markan priority are much, much stronger than his idea of editorial fatigue. Read the scholarly literature with an open mind and you should be able to see this.  

I think each claim of editorial fatigue should be assessed on its merits – Goodacre’s claim of editorial fatigue on the part of Luke in the parable of the ten Minas isnt particularly strong but may be correct. I think his claim of editorial fatigue on the part of Matthew in the story of Herod and John the baptist is definitely wrong.

Robert said

1. Why do you assume that Luke is not aware of the changes in order that he is making? That seems like a bizarre assumption.

I’m not assuming this, I’m considering it a possibility that when Luke edits an original gospel and moves a character’s story to earlier in his gospel its possible he mistakenly moves it to a point which is earlier than when that character was originally introduced. I think the fact that Luke fails in chapter 4 to give Simon the usual introduction/description he gives every other character makes the possibility much more likely.

2. Do you expect him to say something like, “Hey, everybody, I am consciously changing the order of these stories as found previously in the gospel of Mark (or Matthew) so now this is the first meeting of these characters and not what you might have previously thought was the first meeting of these characters.”

No but if Luke is editing Mark and decides to move the story of Jesus meeting Simon on the lake to a point immediately after healing Simon’s mother-in-law in Simon’s house I’d expect the introduction/description of Simon to be moved to the healing story. What’s more if Mark is editing Luke I would think Mark would see this failure of Luke to provide a description/introduction as something requiring correction in his own gospel.

3. There is no indication in Luke’s text that this is the first meeting of Jesus and Simon. Quite the contrary! He has already recounted Jesus going to Simon’s home. I suspect Chapter 5 only reads like an introduction to you because you want to stress that Matthew’s account must be true or primary and that Luke did not realize what he was doing in changing the order.

Luke 5:2 “He saw at the water’s edge two boats, left there by the fishermen, who were washing their nets” indicates this is the first meeting. The general term “fishermen” indicates some as yet unnamed characters.

Another interesting point is that Andrew is conspicuous by his absence. He’s not mentioned in Luke 4 or 5. Mark 1:29 tells us James and John accompanied Jesus to the house of Simon and Andrew. Luke however removes James/ John and Andrew despite having the story in the same place as Mark. The reason being that Luke here is copying Matthew who only has Peter present in his version of the story at a later point in the gospel.

4. Why do you want to assume that Luke may have made an error in choosing to change the order of pericopes? Why can’t he merely be deciding to tell his story the way that he wants to tell it? Doesn’t every author possess some authorial authority?

I’m not assuming – he’s free to make changes and often does for good reasons. But every change brings the possibility of error which will give away the secondary nature of his gospel.

Robert said

That Luke did not feel a need to introduce the fact that Simon was a fisherman, until he is in fact doing the work of a fisherman does not seem like much of a mistake to me. It is not relevant to the healing of his mother-in-law and I’ve already explained a couple of very good reasons for why Luke may want to tell his story the way he does. 

Yes he may well have had good reasons to change the story order, I’m not questioning that. The question is whether his lack of introduction/description of Simon was an oversight and whether a later editor of Luke would see it as a mistake. Luke doesnt need to say Simon’s a fisherman here but just some sort of introduction – Theophilus on his first reading of this Gospel would have no idea who this Simon was, who’s house Jesushas just walked in to.

When they visit Martha’s house we’re told she’s just a woman from the village who opened her door to Jesus. There’s a recognition from the author that a new character is being introduced. The only time there is no recognition is with Simon – likely because the gospel he’s copying from didn’t have this story as Simon’s introduction.

If Mark were editing Luke, and he wanted to introduce Simon’s occupation as a fisherman, he could certainly have done so. But, of course, there’s no indication that Mark saw this as a mistake or a failure.

If Mark saw it as a mistake or a failure he would either add an introduction or move the fishing boat story back to its original place. If Mark edited Luke then Mark must be understood as moving the fishing boat story back to its original place which indicates he saw Luke’s version as a mistake.(although of course he may have just preferred it there)

That is merely your assumption. Worse, you provide no reasoning for why Mark would have supposedly left out Luke’s dramatic opening synagogue scene with Jesus being the fulfillment of Isaiah’s evangelizer prophecy. Mark opens his gospel with John the Baptizer being the fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophesied forerunner to Isaiah’s evangelizer prophecy. Why in the world would Mark eliminate this?

Because for Mark Jesus fulfilling prophesies is not that big an issue. He’s writing for a gentile audience who care about Jesus being the son of god not fulfilling Isaian prophesies. Also because Mark mostly follows the order of Matthew and keeps the rejection of the prophet at Nazareth story in the same place as Matthew. That is after he has first taught in other towns. Luke giving away the original order with the line “Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Capernaum.” in chapter 2.

The reality is much simpler. Luke is building on Mark’s use of Isaiah and pointing more clearly to how Jesus fulfills Isaiah. Additionally, why would Mark eliminate Jesus’ teaching in Judea when he soon-after introduces followers of Jesus from Judea? 

Because its another mistake by Luke. The crowds in Mark and Matthew come from Judea because theyve heard stories about Jesus, he hasnt preached there yet. Luke tells us he preached in Judea 4:44 even though the verse is surrounded by preaching in the towns of Galilee.

Clearly in Luke’s mind it does NOT indicate this is the first meeting of Jesus and Simon. Jesus has already been in Simon’s house and healed his mother-in-law! 

The arbitrariness of your argumentation is revealed here by the fact that you think Luke is making a mistake by mentioning Simon before he is properly introduced as a fisherman, but then you call out as somehow significant that he does not mention Andrew, James, and John before they have been introduced. The reality is much simpler. Jesus’ occupation as a fisherman is irrelevant to this scene as are Andrew, James, and John. But Simon is not irrelevant. The healing of his mother-in-law takes place in his house.  

Andrew James or John can all be put in or left out here its entirely up to Luke. However if he puts them in you’d expect some introduction of who they are – they would be new characters. Luke has chosen to put Simon here, which he’s free to do, that in itself is not an error. The error is failing to put an introduction/description of Simon who at this point is an entirely new character. No one else in any of the four gospels enters the story like this.

Robert said 

You’re making an awfully big deal out of an inconsequential characteristic of folk narratives. It simply cannot bear the weight of an argument against Markan primacy. Would Mark have really been so bothered because Luke has not yet said anything else about Simon at this point in the story?

Its not information about Simon that’s missing, “Jesus went to the home of a man named Simon” would do, it’s the lack of recognition that a new character is being introduced. Referring to someone solely by name indicates an assumption of previous knowledge of the person.

“Then Levi held a great banquet for Jesus at his house” only makes after the verse “Jesus went out and saw a tax collector by the name of Levi sitting at his tax booth”. Any editor reading it this way would want to change the order.

Does Mark tell us the name or profession or anything else about the man with an unclean spirit in Mk 1,23? Does he tell us the name of Simon’s mother-in-law? Does he tell us the names or occupations or anything at all about the other people cured or exorcised that evening in 1,31-34? Does he tell us the name or occupation or anything else about the leper in Mk 1,40-45? Does he tell us anything at all about the paralytic and his companions or the scribes in 2,1-12? The tax-collectors, sinners, scribes, and pharisees in 2,15-16? John’s disciples or the Pharisees in 2,18? Does he tell us the names or professions of any of Jesus’ disciples or the pharisees in 2,23-28? The man was there who had a withered hand or the people wanting to accuse Jesus, whom Jesus speaks directly to in 3,1-5? We only find out that his would-be accusers were pharisees after the fact, when they conspire with nameless Herodians to kill him. Wouldn’t a reader want to know more about the people who were conspiring to kill Jesus so early in this story? How could Mark not tell us more about this? 

Its about references; “a man in their synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit” is a reference to a ceratain man. If Mark gives us this man’s name he can later refer to this man by his name, if not he can refer to him as “the man in the synagogue who was possessed by an impure spirit”. But you can’t use a name to refer to someone who hasn’t appeared yet in the story. “Simon” doesn’t refer to anyone. “A fisherman named Simon” refers to a fisherman named Simon and “Simon” can be used to refer to that fisherman henceforth. The examples above are all legitimate references, names are optional, and the amount of information given is irrelevant.

When Mark first names some of the some of the twelve disciples, we have never been properly introduced to them as new characters: Philip, and Bartholomew, Matthew, Thomas, James son of Alphaeus, Thaddaeus, Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who betrayed him. And yet Mark, who has failed to introduce or name, or to yet tell us anything at all about all of these characters, would be so upset with Luke introducing Simon as someone who Jesus visited him in his home and healed his mother-in-law?

Jesus appointing twelve of his disciples is a legitimate references and Mark gives us the names of these twelve. It’s not about the amount of information given.

This is a nonsense argument against Markan priority. Luke tells us nothing at all about Martha when he invites Jesus into her home; unlike Simon, we don’t even know what village she lives in–is that why you think Mark decided not to include this story about Martha and Mary? Wouldn’t Theophilus also need to know more about Martha and Mary? How could Mark and Theophilus tolerate such a terrible mistake on Luke’s part?

“he came to a village where Martha opened the door for him” would be wrong – the reader wouldn’t know who this Martha being referred to. Luke is just referring to a some woman named Martha which is why he has to write “he came to a village where a woman named Martha opened her home to him”. From then on he can reference this woman simply as “Martha”, not before. “But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made”.

But according to you, Mark chose to begin his gospel by emphasizing that John the Baptizer was fulfilling the forerunner prophecy of Isaiah. If he cared so little about this, why would he begin his whole gospel with this? And yet he chooses to delete the very next next major character of Isaiah’s prophecy, the evangelizer, of whom John is the forerunner?

Mark is not overly concerned with Jesus fulfilling prophesies but he doesn’t have an aversion to it. With the Baptist story the two gospels in front of him, Matthew and Luke, both contain the same prophesy so Mark uses it. With the Prophet without Honor story however he has one gospel with a prophesy and one without. He has no particular inclination to include old testament prophesies and so sticks with the order of gospel he follows most closely, Matthew’s.

Why assume it must be a mistake by Luke rather than merely his telling his story in a way that he thinks is much more plausible. How can you rule out that Luke did not simply think it much more likely to portray crowds coming to Jesus from Judea and Jerusalem if Jesus had in fact at some point gone to preach in Judea?

It’s about what Mark would think. He has both Matthew’s and Luke’s gospel in front of him and can see both gospels only describe stories of Jesus preaching in Galilee at this point. Luke alone has a single line about preaching in Judea. To extract historical truth from these two accounts the most probable explanation is Luke’s single line isn’t true.