Ben C Smith

If such statements carry any weight, they are also reversible. To wit:

1. Agreements of Matthew and Luke against Mark are fully consistent with Luke being secondary.
2. Agreements of Mark and Luke against Matthew are also fully consistent with Mk being secondary.
3. But agreements of Matthew and Mark against Luke are entirely inconsistent with Luke being the earliest gospel.

Since all three categories of agreements exist, they would (on your view) have to press against any of the three gospels being earlier than the other two.

In fact, agreements against a gospel have nothing to do with that gospel being first, last, or medial. Once gospels A and B are written (B having both copied from and made changes to A), gospel C is free to copy from and make changes to either A or B at will. Doing it to A will create an agreement against B; doing it to B will create an agreement against A. Going its own way would create an agreement of A and B against C itself.

Granted, but all in good time.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

Goodacre's "editorial fatigue" models a type editing problem when a person lapses into the docile reproduction of his source. The criteria for identify a case of editorial fatigue are necessary polythetic--they should have a most or all of the features that I quoted from the article.

Your example has numerous exceptions to Goodacre's ideal case of fatigue--i.e, Matthew's, but not Luke's, characteristic language at the critical juncture, the lateness in the passage of the Matthean redaction, the lack of remoteness between the docile reproduction and the redaction, and the supposed conflation with another source with οι λοιποι. Even if you make the plea that a similar instance of each exception can be found in a (different) less-than-ideal example of fatigue, it is important to recognize, as Farrer did (in a different context), that "one must concede that it is a plea against apparent evidence, and that, other things being equal, we should accept the evidence and drop the plea."

But other things are not equal here, because your example has a cluster of exceptions to the criteria Goodacre identified, and it is instructive that multiple slightly-less-than-ideal case of fatigue are needed to account for the exceptions.

The parable of the banquet is too far removed from the ideal case of fatigue, and its ,amy exceptions overwhelm what few remaining criteria are in favor of it. Whatever is going on, it is not a case of fatigue.

Stephen

Ben C Smith

In my scenario Matthew is the secondary author, Luke the primary. In his article Goodacre nowhere AFAICT discusses the characteristic language of the primary, only the secondary. On pages 52-53, where he talks about writing characteristically, it is Matthew (the secondary author) whose characteristics he identifies as relevant to editorial fatigue, not Mark (the primary). Likewise, in my case, it is Matthew (the secondary author) whose characteristic writing you and I have identified, not Luke (the primary).

To ask that I incorporate characteristic Lucan writing is to ask something that the article itself, whose principles I was applying, nowhere demands.

Goodacre nowhere makes this a criterion. He does on page 52 speak of making changes in the beginning of the pericope itself, but in reality several of the examples he offers involve changes either in the middle of the pericope or in an earlier pericope altogether. If my example is an exception on that account, then it is in good company.

What Goodacre really means by fatigue, I think, he announces several times throughout his essay:

Editorial fatigue is a phenomenon that will inevitably occur when a writer is heavily dependent on another's work. In telling the same story as his predecessor, a writer makes changes in the early stages which he is unable to sustain throughout.

[Matthew] has made changes in the early stages which he fails to sustain throughout, thus betraying his knowledge of Mark.

[Luke] has made changes in the Parable, changes that he has not been able to sustain in the Interpretation.

On several occasions, then, an evangelist's faithfulness to his source at one point has apparently led his account into difficulties at other points.

I can certainly say the same thing with regard to my example. Matthew has made a change (the introduction of the armed conflict and his characteristic timing word) that leads his account into difficulties at another point (where the banquet is still set).

Goodacre nowhere discusses remoteness or proximity in the article. Again you appear to be demanding something of my example that the article does not demand.

Goodacre nowhere mentions whether or not conflation with another source either confirms or rules out fatigue. However, he does include one example, the parable of the pounds, which is believed by many to be a conflation of two different parables (see, for instance, Crossan, In Parables), one about a nobleman going to receive a kingdom and the other about a master entrusting money. So I do not think conflation would make a good exception to fatigue, anyway, even if you wished to argue the case afresh, apart from Goodacre.

From your list, my case has one possible exception to the rule, just like several other cases that Goodacre adduces.

Ben.

S.C.Carlson

From Goodacre's article: "That Matthew is involved in docile reproduction here is all the more plausible given the little stress in his Gospel on the secrecy theme that is so prominent a feature of Mark." It is also inherent in: "they [Matt and Luke] agree with Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less characteristically." Agreement with their source's characteristics is strong evidence of their writing less characteristically.

These issues are too sides of the same coin. From Goodacre's article:

But this is different from the phenomenon of fatigue. The examples above are not merely cases where Matthew and Luke show signs of incoherence in relation to a coherent Marcan account. Rather, in most cases, Matthew and Luke differ from Mark at the beginning of the pericope, at the point where they are writing most characteristically, (26) and they agree with Mark later in the pericope, where they are writing less characteristically. It is not possible to find the same phenomenon in Mark."

Goodacre's "later in the pericope" has be to understood in terms of his model for this editorial behavior. It is not a binary attribute, where even one word "later" count. Rather, it means sufficiently late so that the editing lapse is understandable within his model as a case of fatigue. The more remote the lapse is, the easier it was to do. Moreover, the further removed the changes are, the less likely they are to be reversed by a later redactor.

The issue of where in the pericope the changes occurs is also a question of degree. The more to the beginning of the passage the characteristic Mattheanism is, the more likely he has embarked on a redactorial problem and the more unintentional his later lapse becomes. Likewise, the agreement with the proposed source is a question of degree. The closer the agreement (even to the point of reproducing the source's characteristic features), the more likely the lapse that caused the difficulty was docile.

The criteria that Goodacre discussed do not form a checklist where they can simply be summed up. They must weighed in relation to how strongly they reflect his particular editorial model. Not all criteria need be present or equally strong, but if some criteria are weak, others should be strong.

OK, let's take a closer look at this point of the account again (Matthew's "additions" are in bold blue, Matthew's redaction of Luke in normal blue):

7 The king was angry, and he sent his troops and destroyed those murders and burned their city. 8 Then he says to his servants, "The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy. 9 Go therefore to the thoroughfares, and invite to the marriage feast as many as you find."

The change and the difficulty it engenders are basically at the same point in the account. Only four words separate the conjunction τότε from the statement about the banquet being set, and τότε is the very conjunction that ties v.8b to v.7. Moreover, this statement does not happen where Matthew is reproducing Luke. The closest agreement Matthew has with Luke here is at v.8a where his λέγει τοὶς δούλοις αὐτοῦ can be compared here with Luke's εἶπεν τῷ δούλῳ αὐτοῦ -- and even here Matthew's historical present of λέγει is usually considered more primitive than Luke's aorist εἶπεν.

Matthew's hand is thus too active in your example to be a case of editorial fatigue. The supposedly difficult statement (The wedding is ready, but those invited were not worthy) has no direct counterpart in Luke, and v.9 is but a loose paraphrase of Luke 14:21b. Moreover, the wording of the statement is not uncharacteristic of Matthew. Whatever difficulties there are do not stem from Matthew's later lapsing into a docile reproduction of Luke but from something he crafted.

Your proferred counter-example of Luke 10:23-24, in which the difficulty pops up in the next verse, is still more than four times more remote (18 words versus 4) than your case, and the agreement with Matthew is verbatim to boot. Its proximity is not as weak as in your case, and its evidence for docile reproduction is much stronger.

To sum it up for your case, the Matthean redaction occurs too late in the passage, it is too close to where the problem happens, where the problem happens is too divergent from Luke, and the problem is too slight. None of this bad evidence cumulates to a good or even marginal case of editorial fatigue. On top of all that, there is evidence that Matthew's wording is more primitive (the historical present).

Stephen

Yuri Kuchinsky

OK.

OK.

False.

Please explain your reasoning for this.

I don't understand this.

I disagree.

But there's still the question of probability.

So what I'm saying is that the Anti-Markan agreements make it extremely improbable that Mk was the earliest gospel.

All the best,

Yuri.

Ben C Smith

Hi, Stephen. Good points all around. I appreciate your taking the time to interact with me on the matter.

I have a response mostly prepared, but my schedule has not been permitting me to finish it up. Hopefully sometime tomorrow.

Ben.

Ben C Smith

You misunderstand. I was reversing your argument. I agree with you that Matthew and Mark agreeing against Luke does not imply Lucan posteriority. However, I also think that Matthew and Luke agreeing against Mark does not imply Marcan posteriority. And, to round things out, I also hold that Mark and Luke agreeing against Matthew does not imply Matthean posteriority.

There are three immutable facts at work here, facts that are empirically ascertainable with a good run through a Greek synopsis. These facts, I might add, are facts even if one chooses to use the Byzantine text, the Alexandrian text, or any other text one wishes; the numbers will change, but not by enough to alter these three basic data:

1. Matthew and Mark sometimes agree against Luke in the triple tradition.
2. Matthew and Luke sometimes agree against Mark in the triple tradition.
3. Mark and Luke sometimes agree against Matthew in the triple tradition.

As Kevin Bacon said in A Few Good Men, these are the facts, and they are not disputed.

Now, you are on record as saying:

And:

In other words, you apparently think that the agreements I have described in my number 2 above, the Matthew-Luke agreements against Mark, argue against Marcan priority. My question, then, is why you think that. Why suppose that agreements against Mark indicate Marcan posteriority? Do agreements against Luke (number 1 above) indicate Lucan posteriority? If not, why not? Do agreements against Matthew (number 3 above) indicate Matthean posteriority? If not, why not?

Let me ask this same question another way. You apparently think that Mark cannot be the first of the three if Matthew and Luke agree against him in the triple tradition. You also think that it was Luke, in fact, who was first of the three. But, if Mark cannot be first because Matthew and Luke have agreements against him, how can Luke be first when Matthew and Mark also have agreements against him?

Ben.

Chris Weimer

Yuri tried to pull out the "1000" cases against Mark before, citing Neirynck. What he failed to say is that 3/4's of these cases are actually agreements in omission.

http://neonostalgia.com/forum/index.php?topic=63.0

S.C.Carlson

Take as much time as you need. My schedule always get crowded when the Internet gets interesting.

Stephen

Yuri Kuchinsky

OK, Ben, let me try to clarify this.

IMHO the standard 2 Source Theory (2ST), which asserts Markan priority, is refuted by the agreements of Mt and Lk against Mk (the Anti-Markan Agreements).

Now, do the agreements of Mt and Mk against Lk refute Lukan priority? This of course depends on one's precise definition of 'Lukan priority'.

If we define 'Lukan priority' in its most extreme form (i.e. everything in Lk is very early), then the agreements of Mt and Mk against Lk can indeed refute 'Lukan priority'.

But since I don't hold the theory of Lukan priority in its most extreme form, I remain untroubled by these agreements of Mt and Mk against Lk.

In fact, I admit that, in some cases, the agreements of Mt and Mk against Lk may indeed indicate that these parallel Lukan passages are rather late and editorially corrupted.

But IMHO most of the agreements of Mt and Mk against Lk are not in any way a threat to Lukan priority. For example, the whole "Bethsaida section" in Mk/Mt -- where these two gospels follow each other pretty closely -- seems like a late editorial insertion. Lk of course omits this whole section.

All the best,

Yuri.