razlyubleno

We can safely assume that there were documents written about Jesus, that we no longer have anymore. Matthew does not automatically become the solution to your puzzle simply because you need a written source to come before Mark; it's quite possible that an unknown document is Mark's source.

Absolutely. But it's not a question of where Matthew got his terminology from; it's a question of why he exhibits editorial fatigue. The phenomenon characterizes the redaction of source material, and Matthew didn't redact Josephus, even if he used him as a source. The strength of Goodacre's argument rests not on Matthew's use of the word "tetrarch," but instead it rests on the inconsistency of that usage. If Matthew had been writing his gospel from scratch, he would have picked a term and ran with it; he would have either seen Herod as a tetrarch, or as a king, but he wouldn't have had any motivation for mixing his terminology. And more to the point, if Mark used Matthew as a source, then what is the former's motivation for choosing Matthew's least favourite, least used, term? Why did Mark not refer to Herod as "tetrach"?

I'll add to this, that it's not any single example that makes Goodacre's case a persuasive one; but rather, it's the cumulative weight of all the evidence he provides. It's possible to wriggle out from underneath each example of fatigue, but the total weight of everything put together is simply crushing.

razly

aa5874

No. Not at all. We cannot safely assume what we are trying to determine. You cannot assume there were written documents about Jesus unless you are admitting that gMark was not the first.

However, we can safely assume that there was some other source, written or oral, from which the author of gMark got some prior information about Jesus Christ. The author introduced Jesus Christ as the son of God with a gospel from the very first verse, an indication that the reader was expected to know about Jesus.

On the other hand, with the author of Matthew, it cannot be safely assumed that there were written or oral information about Jesus before gMatthew. This author appears to have derived his Jesus from Hebrew scriptures.

And further it is not automatic that gMark is the solution.






So, you must answer the question. Did the author of gMatthew get the word "tetrarch" from gMark?

"Tetrarch" is not found in gMark.

Could the author of gMark get the word "king" from gMatthew?

The word "king" is found in gMatthew.

No-one is dealing with redaction, we are dealing with the word tetrarch. The words Herod the tetrarch can be found in Josephus, the author of Matthew may have used Josephus.


You are mistaken, the author of Mark used the word 'king", A word used many times by the author of Matthew.


Perhaps the author of gMark did not even read Josephus and did not realise that there was a Herod the tetrarch.

Or, perhaps the author of Mark himself suffered editorial fatigue. Surely the author of Mark cannot be immune to editorial fatigue if there is such a thing.

But, you can't wriggle away from the fact that you have admitted that there is likely to have been some source that preceeded gMark.

That fact makes "editorial fatigue" weightless.

razlyubleno

Even if we supposed that Mark wasn't first, and even if we supposed there were written sources prior to Mark, rather than an oral one, this still wouldn't prove that Matthew was the source for Mark.

And my vote is for a very small amount of oral tradition. Sue me.

Of course not. But that's beside the point. Matthew could have used the word "caesar," or "prince," or "overlord"... but it wouldn't matter. The point is that he begins his gospel using a word other than "king," uses it consistently and repeatedly, but then, oops! He says "king." Well actually, he didn't say "king" at all; Mark said "king" and Matthew, in this one instance, since he was fatigued with the editing process, accidentally failed to correct his predecessor.

You're right, I used that word incorrectly.

But still, a writer cannot get fatigued with only a single instance of a single word. He can only get fatigued if he is correcting multiple instances of a word across the span of a document he is editing.

Yes. But only once does Matthew ever use the word to refer to Herod Antipas. And he does so in agreement with Mark.

But he didn't need to know Josephus at all in order to get "Herod the tetrarch." He need only have known Matthew. The question is, if Mark based his gospel on Matthew, then why did he choose to refer to Herod as "king," but never as "tetrarch"? Matthew consistently, with only one exception, referred to Herod as a tetrarch. Why does Mark go against the grain like that?

Goodacre already considered this possibility, and he wasn't able to reverse the order of dependence. I'll quote from the article:
If you're so convinced that Goodacre's argument is bogus, then all you have to do is show a single example of Mark getting fatigued while editing Matthew.

Yeah, but I really, truly don't see any evidence that the source was the Gospel of Matthew. In fact, I see an abundance of evidence against Matthean priority.

razly

aa5874

Just that gMatthew has a better chance of being first.

The written statements of the church writers is that gMatthew was written first.


You are mistaken. The word tetrarch is found only one single time in gMatthew.

And you really cannot prove that the author of Matthew was fatigued because of editing gMark when the author of Matthew mentioned the words Herod the king in his own writings.

Matthew 2:3 - If anything it was the author of gMark that showed signs of either fatigue or ignorance, five times he used the wrong title for Herod, but only once by the author of Matthew.




The author of Mark used the wrong title for Herod five times in the same chapter,so he must have been suffering from your editorial fatigue.



You are mistaken. The word tetrarach is found only once in gMatthew.


Can you explain why the author of Mark did not realise that he wrote the wrong title for Herod five times? Was he tired or what?

And I don't see your abundance of evidence for Markan priority.

razlyubleno

Uhm. Looks like my replay got lost when FRDB bit the dust. That being said, it was killer, dismantled every point against me, totally won the argument fair and square. Naturally it was too good to ever be reproduced, so I'll just sum up what I said: You don't understand the concept of editorial fatigue. At all.

I think you just skimmed the article. There's no way you've actually read it properly from start to finish, since you're agreeing with me, for crying out loud, by saying how many times Matthew said "tetrarch"... you just don't seem to understand the significance of your own words. At all.

razly

aa5874

Something too good to be true probably is.

You cannot claim victory by saying I don't understand what you are talking about when it may be tue that you yourself really don't understand that the editorial fatigue theory is extremely weak.

You claimed I have just skimmed the article, but that may have been what the author of Mark did. He may have skimmed the gospel according to the so-called Matthew or wrote his gospel based on those who skimmed gMatthew.

GMark has far less details about his character Jesus than gMatthew. That is an indication or consistent with skimming.

I will show that it was you who have made errors or erroneous assumptions about the author of gMatthew.

1. You admitted that it was a good argument that gMark was written as though the audience was already aware of Jesus.

2. You agreed that the word "tetrarch" used by gMatthew was not derived from or is not in gMark.

Now, if some other source about Jesus is likely to have preceeded gMark, then it cannot be assumed that gMatthew could not have used the same source that gMark used.

It is almost certain that gMatthew did not use gMark to correctly call Herod the tetrarch, therefore it cannot be assumed that gMatthew used gMark to get information about Herod when it is clear that the author of Matthew had access to a credible historical source.

The author of gMark may have depended on hearsay, rumors or his faulty memory after skmming other sources, he appears not to have any credible source about Herod.

You must bear in mind that the Jesus gospel story as found in gMark is fundamentally fiction, and that he wrote as though his audience already believed or was familiar with the stories.

And gMatthew wrote as though his audience was ignorant of any Jesus stories and was for the very first time hearing about Jesus, and introduced his Jesus from conception through a virgin, using Isaiah 7.14.

It therefore cannot be proven that the author Matthew needed gMark in any way, it cannot be proven that the author of Matthew edited gMark.

The author of gMatthew for sure used Hebrew scriptues and possibly the writings of Josephus to derive his Jesus.

The author of Mark must have used or edited some other source which may include gMatthew. The author of Mark was not the first to write about Jesus, perhaps the author of Matthew was.

Amaleq13

You might want consider the possibility that he was being funny with his blatantly over-the-top description.

Think of it as less a declaration of victory than a recognition of futility. You clearly don't understand the concept and clearly have not either read or understood the article.

It is not like you've never had this response before. :huh:

Or he knew less. Or he was more reluctant to fabricate details. Or he only wrote what he thought was needed/relevant to this audience. The "ors" never end with such an ambiguous "indication". That tends to mean it really isn't any "indication" of anything in particular.

And you failed to understand the stated limits of that admission. It simply cannot establish the claim by itself and certainly not against the evidence to the contrary. Also, the point you make is not surprising to anyone who accepts that folks preached about Jesus well before Mark wrote his story.

And you failed to understand that this does not help you but actually argues against your position.

Nobody claims that Mark was Matthew's only source so why waste time on a straw man?

Are you at all familiar with the evidence or arguments that support the conclusion Matthew rewrote Mark? The comment above suggests otherwise.

Not "any". Just the part about how he was born. And that certainly makes sense if it is something that is being added to a familiar story.

You should read up on the synoptic problem and the actual arguments/evidence used to establish the conclusion before making such pronouncements. Only after you've seen the entire body of relevant evidence, can an informed conclusion can be reached.

aa5874

Are you claiming that no-one has ever suggested that gMatthew was written before gMark?

Are you claiming that the Synoptic problem has been resolved?

It should be obvious that a Synoptic problem exists due to a lack of conclusive information.

Amaleq13

Why ask such silly and irrelevant questions?

You'll never know for sure until you actually start reading about it.

aa5874

You probably think questions are silly and irrelevant.

Now, look at another question, the OP. Now, this is silly.

You know what people read!

You are a mind-reader!

Very silly.