Robert said

Incorrect. Mark is in error but he is consistent. Matthew corrects Mark initially but then is inconsistent. You want to say that τετραάρχης and βασιλεύς are synonymous but that is not true. There is an important difference between being ‘king’ vs being a  ‘tetrarch’ or ‘ruler’ in the general sense. The importance of this distinction can be seen clearly in Josephus, eg, when a tetrarch wants to be named king but this is refused by Caesar. See, eg, Antiquities 14,382 Judean War 1,282 1,483 1,664.668 2,181-2 

Herod was colloquially known as βασιλεύς despite his official title only being τετραάρχης; Luke calls βασιλεύς in acts and is not following Mark here.

Matthew however already has a different King Herod in ch2 so has to distinguish this Herod as Herod the tetrarach in Mt 14:1 before switching to the colloquial “King” or βασιλεύς or “Ruler” in Mt 14:9.

Luke’s switching from τετραάρχης to βασιλεύς is not editorial fatigue and neither is Matthew’s.

It does not seem as if you have grasped what Goodacre’s argument is here. Read the article that I linked to. With respect to your point, there can sometimes be a very important difference between arresting someone and killing them. Surely you realize that, right?  

This is Goodacre’s argument; Matthew tells us, contrary to Mark, that Herod wanted to kill John the Baptist. However Matthew displays the editorial/secondary content of his gospel when he tells us later, in agreement with Mark, that Herod was distressed when he had to grant Herodias’ daughter her wish to have John the baptist killed.

This argument is incorrect. Matthew tells us Herod wanted to kill John but was afraid of the people who thought John was a prophet. Herod didn’t want the stigma of being a prophet killer; Josephus tells us this was the reason for his downfall. Its the classic “will no one rid be of this turbulent priest”. Matthew’s line that Herod had John arrested, bound and put in prison, confirms this impression. Herod doing everything he can to silence John but stopping short of having him killed. 

Matthew then tells us Herod is grieved when it turns out he will indeed have to become a prophet killer by honoring his oath to Herodias’s daughter. Matthew is historically and internally consistent here.

It seems Mark did not quite get this – he edits Matthew’s account with the bizarre line that Herod protected John knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. This in direct contradiction to “he had him arrested, bound and put in prison” carried over from Matthew. Mark is historically inaccurate and internally inconsistent. 

Robert said

So let me know if I understand your new version of this rule of narrative dynamics that Mark supposedly finds offensive in the breach such that he must abandon the order of Luke’s narrative which he nonetheless necessarily knew. An author cannot refer to a character by name until he has first introduced him by some other characteristic, other than his name. This prior characteristic need only be the sex of the character.  “Jesus went to the home of a man named Simon” is OK. But “Jesus went into the house of Simon” violates your new rule. Do I understand your new rule correctly?

Even though it should be obvious that someone named Simon is not a woman, it must necessarily be explicitly said first that it is a man named Simon. Got it.

An author can do whatever they like but if they refer to someone by just a name there’s an implicit assumption that the reader knows who is being talked about. If the character hasnt been named before the author must refer to something the reader knows, however trivial. Which is why Martha is introduced as “a woman named Martha”. Are we think Luke thought his readers might think Martha was a man?

Luke assumes his readers know Jerusalem but not Nazareth. Which is why he can tell his readers that “Joseph and Mary took him to Jerusalem to present him to the Lord” in 2:22 but must in his readers that Nazareth is “a town in Galilee” in 1:26.

In 4:38 Luke is assuming his readers know who Simon is “Jesus left the synagogue and went to the home of Simon.”

Here you are merely assuming what you were supposedly trying to prove.

No in those two particular instances I was just demonstrating consistency of the theory, not giving arguments for it. In order to demonstrate consistency you’ll need to start with the assumptions of the theory.

I’m inclined to remind you, once again, of a question above which you, once again, chose to completely ignore (cf Post 49):  The overwhelming majority of scholars do not agree with your assessment. Why do you think that is?

Do you mean this particular issue? or Markan priority in general?

I’m not sure many scholars have talked about this particular issue. I’d say a few would be willing to concede that there’s some suggestion of Mark editing Luke here but that evidence is overwhelmed by the wealth of evidence supporting Markan priority elsewhere.

With regards to why the vast majority go with Markan priority in general I’d say Mark Goodacre is correct: “Thus for many the strongest argument for Marcan priority remains the implausibility of the Griesbach hypothesis”

I think the Griesbach hypothesis is very plausible.

Robert said

No. I have not said neither shows editorial fatigue. Nor have I agreed with you. That is wishful thinking on your part. With respect to your assumption of how one protects someone, you have still failed to recognize the distinction between arresting and decapitating someone.  

You have said “In both accounts Herod arrests John on account of his unlawful marriage but does not kill him, and in both accounts he is forced to kill John on account of his oath to the daughter. Mark places the conflict within Herod himself, whereas Matthew makes Herod afraid of the people” which I agree with. I don’t see any editorial fatigue in Matthew here. Do you see any here?

There’s certainly a distinction between arresting and decapitating someone – but neither is consistent with protecting them.

Most readers of Luke probably did  already know who Simon was or soon would. They certainly knew Simon was a man and Martha was a woman. Thus your rule is ridiculous as an indication against Markan priority and even more absurd as an argument in favor of Matthean priority.

Most readers of Luke probably knew who John and James were too but they still get an introduction. Of all the named characters Simon is the only one who’s prior knowledge by the reader is assumed by the author. Whether you think Luke was copying Mark or copying Matthew the reason for the passage assuming this is obvious – it has been taken from an original gospel in which the actual introduction of Simon had been placed earlier.

The readers certainly knew Martha was a woman, but why did Luke feel the need to tell them?