I’ve been thinking a lot lately about the (principally Mark Goodacre’s) argument for editorial fatigue in support of Markan priority. Here’s one video () which broadly discusses the topic. I find editorial fatigue as the most compelling argument in favor of Markan priority. (The second most compelling, to me, is the rough Greek of Mark.)
However, I’ve noticed that editorial fatigue is often framed or defined in way which bakes in part of the conclusion, tending to make the argument potentially circular. For example, I asked ChatGPT for a definition of editorial fatigue in the context of synoptic studies. The definition I got back was as follows: “In synoptic studies, editorial fatigue refers to a phenomenon where a Gospel writer who is adapting a source begins by making deliberate editorial changes to the source material (altering details, wording, order, etc.), but later in the same passage inadvertently reverts to the original form or details from the source—creating internal inconsistencies or narrative slips.”
So, using this definition, “editorial fatigue” isn’t so much a proposed explanation for an observation, but a demonstrable “phenomenon” that merely needs to be identified. Needless to say, I think using this definition has an inherent bias.
So I set out to create my own, seeking to eliminate this bias, while also removing academic jargon. This is what I got:
“Editorial fatigue” is a proposed explanation for certain observations about two or more texts, which hypothesizes that one or more texts borrowed content from the other text, which was written earlier. “Editorial fatigue” is said to be demonstrated where: (i) two or more texts appear to be telling the same story; (ii) there is a variance in details about the story as between the respective texts; (iii) one of the texts appears to be internally inconsistent; and (iv) the inconsistency is characterized by an initial variance in a specific detail between the two texts; but (v) that variance in detail is not present in later portions of the same story. “Editorial fatigue” posits that the text with the internally inconsistent detail has copied the story from the other text.
This definition removes terms like redaction, reversion, changing of the text, and source text — as they betray a built-in conclusions.
Thoughts?
I also find editorial fatigue an especially compelling argument for Marcan priority.
But I’m not sure I understand the problem your definition is avoiding.
It seems to me that editorial fatigue is a phenomenon–when an editor is engaged in a certain sort of editorial activity, he may tire and make a certain sort of distinctive mistake.
Because that sort of mistake is distinctive and difficult to plausibly account for otherwise, when we see that sort of mistake in the text we have a compelling reason to think we are seeing the result of editorial fatigue.
The issue is that we don’t know if it actually happens. It’s a hypothesis or a proposal which seeks to explain data.
So defining it as an existent phenomenon betrays a bias toward its occurrence — when, in fact, we’re not certain it occurs at all. Indeed, Mark could be first and yet the reason for certain noteworthy discrepancies in Matthew (e.g., whether Herod was a tetrarch) could be explained by something other than editorial fatigue.
defining it as an existent phenomenon betrays a bias toward its occurrence
The way I see it, editorial fatigue just is when an editor makes certain sorts of mistakes in the course of redaction, which mistakes lead to a certain sort of inconsistency in the text compared to the text he was redacting. That just is what it is. That definition doesn’t tell you whether it happened in a given case.
To wax philosophical, definitions don’t (and can’t) include existence. To know *what* something is isn’t the same as knowing *that* it is. I can tell you what a phoenix is, but that doesn’t tell you whether there is or ever was such a thing. (This is one of the classic objections to Anselm’s ontological argument).
Now, if we see the sorts of inconsistencies that editorial fatigue tends to cause, we have a good reason to think we are witnessing editorial fatigue (because there are a limited number of plausible explanations for those sorts of inconsistencies).
It may be that Goodacre or others have gotten a hair sloppy in speech and spoken as though a certain sort of inconsistency in a text just is editorial fatigue, eliding over the step where we notice that this sort of inconsistency is far and away most easily explained as a result of editorial fatigue, and so can be reasonably taken as a reliable sign of editorial fatigue.
Let’s draw a parallel to cosmology.
If someone asks, “what is the multiverse?”, the common response is not: “The multiverse is a reference to all the universes encompassing the cosmos.”
The reason that definition is not used is because we don’t actually know if the multiverse is a thing.
Instead, the common definition is “the hypothetical set of all universes” or “a hypothetical collection of identical or diverse universes” or “a hypothetical concept suggesting the existence of multiple universes.”
The definitions don’t assume its existence.
The same should go for “editorial fatigue” in synoptic studies. So, to say, editorial fatigue is “When one writer is copying the work of another and makes changes at the beginning of an account, which are not sustained throughout,” which is the way Goodacre essentially defined it on Dr. Ehrman’s blog (** you do not have permission to see this link **), appears to bake in the assumption that what he is describing has actually happened.
To me, it’s merely as proposed explanation for certain observations being made in the reading of parallel texts.
To me, it’s merely as proposed explanation for certain observations being made in the reading of parallel texts.
Yeah but I think porphyry’s point is that it winds up being the most likely explanation. It’s the best approach to the idea of Markan priority itself. There is more than one possible explanation for the relationship between the gospels but Markan priority is the most likely explanation.
to say, editorial fatigue is “When one writer is copying the work of another and makes changes at the beginning of an account, which are not sustained throughout,” which is the way Goodacre essentially defined it on Dr. Ehrman’s blog (** you do not have permission to see this link **..-goodacre/), appears to bake in the assumption that what he is describing has actually happened.
I don’t think that speaks to whether or how often it has happened.
“Yeah but I think porphyry’s point is that it winds up being the most likely explanation. It’s the best approach to the idea of Markan priority itself. There is more than one possible explanation for the relationship between the gospels but Markan priority is the most likely explanation.”
Yes, it is arguably the best explanation we currently have for certain observations, but we are lacking direct evidence that this phenomenon actually exists.
For many scientists, the multiverse is the best current explanation for the existence of our universe with the properties it has; yet, it’s still treated as a hypothetical solution.
Separately …. is there not a problem with this framing: “[Editorial fatigue] is the best approach to the idea of Markan priority itself.” This is an “approach” which, as you put it, assumes the conclusion, to wit: Markan priority is the most likely explanation for the ordering of the synoptics. Should the “approach” bake in the assumed answer? I say no.
This is why I say that “editorial fatigue” and “Markan priority” itself need to be approached from a neutral framework, which doesn’t already assume that Markan priority is the best explanation — particularly if the best evidence cited (editorial fatigue) for Markan priority also assumes Markan priority.
If we analyze our observations of parallel texts, which have raised editorial fatigue as a proposed explanation, we need to equally examine other proposed explanation (which don’t assume editorial fatigue or Markan priority).
Marcan priority is not an assumption. It is a conclusion. Matthean priority was always the assumption historically because it rested on the foundational assumption of apostolic provenance. It was only when scholars were able to safely challenge that assumption did they slowly arrive at the conclusion that it is much more likely that Mark was first.
I have zero interest in getting into an argument about Markan priority but at this point there is so much material available outlining the arguments that there is no need. I consider the issue a done deal, one of the few in NT studies, but that’s not because I take it on faith. I understand the arguments.
It’s precisely because so many people consider the topic resolved — even as the evidence used to support this belief has changed so much in recent decades — that has interested me in the topic.
I’m happy to accept Markan priority. I’m just no longer convinced, like I was.
I regard it as a hypothesis with stronger evidence than competing hypotheses, but can now be regarded as sufficiently challenged.
The strongest evidence is that Mark is the middle term of Matthew and Luke.
That definition clearly implies that it’s an occurrence from antiquity.
This is precisely what I deny.
“Markan priority” itself need to be approached from a neutral framework, which doesn’t already assume that Markan priority is the best explanation — particularly if the best evidence cited (editorial fatigue) for Markan priority also assumes Markan priority.
I don’t see where the best evidence of Marcan priority has assumed Marcan priority.
I don’t see where the best evidence of Marcan priority has assumed Marcan priority.
I’m assuming that editorial fatigue is the best evidence for Markan priority. So the rest of this post makes that assumption.
Here is Professor Goodacre’s definition of “editorial fatigue”:
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.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Professor Goodacre then seeks to demonstrate this (yet unproven) phenomenon:
Let us therefore return to one of our examples from triple tradition material, the story of the Leper.
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. [H]ere [Matthew] is returning to triple tradition (Markan) material. He resets the scene by making a characteristic Matthean change, introducing ‘many crowds’; 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.
** you do not have permission to see this link **
Note that Professor Goodacre’s definition (“When one writer is copying the work of another, changes are sometimes made at the beginning of an account, which are not sustained throughout[,] and [t]he writer lapses into docile reproduction of his / her source.”) and general examples (“[E]xamples 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.”) both assume, without direct evidence, editorial fatigue is the actual explanation for certain observations.
Similarly, his synoptic example simply assumes Markan Priority a priori (“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.”), framing Matthew as “returning to … Markan material,” making a “change” (from Mark), introducing material “never found in Mark,” docilely “reproduc[ing] his source,” and adding a “new introduction.”
What Professor Goodacre has done here is assume Markan priority, assume the existence of editorial fatigue as a phenomenon, and then seek to connect the two for proof of each other — thus, seeming to prove what he has already assumed.
What Professor Goodacre doesn’t do is look at the texts and offer alternative possible explanations for the Matthean text, explanations which may not rely directly on copying from Mark.
Hi Robert! Good to see you again.
I wouldn’t treat exegetical discussions as pure, symbolic logic. When Goodacre and others are speaking to a general audience, they will simplify things to make it easier to understand. This may appear “sloppy” from the perspective of a logician, but it is also a didactic tactic that allows one to present a seasoned perspective that the general audience would not be able to achieve without years of advanced study. Bart once made a general statement about Bultmann that struck me as wildly absurd. I asked Bart where Bultmann said this, in what context, and he admitted that he was merely simplifying things for a general audience.
This is precisely why I was endeavoring to come up with a purely neutral definition, which also avoided words and terms of art commonly used by academics in the field, but possibly prone to misunderstanding by the lay.
I don’t think [editorial fatigue] is [the Markan priority], if only because it is too slippery.
Interesting. I am curious on what you find most persuassive (and why) …. understanding that you don’t seem particularly energized about the topic.
What has occurred now that sufficiently challenged Marcan priority?
If you’re interested enough, and wanted to engage on the topic, I’d actually love to write a post with the argument that got me to finally really question Markan priority. Let me know. Thanks!
Mark’s rough Greek, in and of itself, is not much of an argument, until you consider how Matthew and Luke change it in different ways, not just improving his Greek but in executing the whole of their stories. One of the best graduate seminar discussions I recall of a particular minor agreement led to the realization that Matthew and Luke, while agreeing verbally, were actually presenting opposite views when seen in the larger context.
This is a strong point, and something that I would likely address in my post (if I make it) — which would essentially present an argument for Markan posterity.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert