Re: [Synoptic-L] Fatigue in Death of John Baptist
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2001 1:43 PM
Subject: [Synoptic-L] Fatigue in Death of John Baptist
> In his article, "Fatigue in the Synoptics" in New Testament Studies_, 44
> (1998), pp. 45-58 (also, http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/q/fatigue.htm),
> Goodacre advances the argument that Matthew's gospel contains "fatigue,"
> owing to its dependence on Mark. I earlier argued (3/27) that his case
> against Matthew's cleansing of the leper (Matthew 8:1-4) was
> because the crowds were clearly present evident in Mark (Mark 1:28-44),
> when Jesus admonished the leper to remain silent.
> In this post I argue that his case against Matthew's Death of John the
> Baptist is similarly badly flawed. Goodacre claims that there is a strong
> example of "fatigue" in Matthew's tale, but I will argue here that that is
> simply not true.
> In Mark 6:14-29, Herod is afraid of John, but protected him and liked to
> listen to him (6:19-20), so when he has to honor his oath and behead John,
> expresses grief. Goodacre (p. 47) believes that Matthew inexplicably
> expresses grief (Matthew 14:9) at having to behead John: "It makes no
> at all. Matthew had told us, after all, that 'Herod wanted to put him to
> However, what doesn't make sense to me is the apparent complete disregard
> Matthew's implication in 14:5 that while Herod wanted John dead, he didn't
> DARE kill him for fear of what the people might do. It seems totally
> sensible, then, for Herod to feel grief at being forced because of his
> to do the very thing he was afraid to do.
> Goodacre also notes that Mark always calls Herod "king," (four times) even
> though he was only a "tetrarch." Because Matthew calls Herod "tetrarch"
> once, then "king" later, Goodacre believes this is evidence that Mark was
> Matthew's source, and that Matthew clumsily "betrays his knowledge of
> by retaining the "king" title from Mark.
> I believe this argument, too, fails. Why should we believe from this
> evidence that it was Mark, and not Matthew, who was the source? At least
> Matthew was right once, while Mark was wrong all four times. Why couldn't
> Mark have edited Matthew's tale while overlooking Matthew's one reference
> tetrarch, seen his reference to "king," and added the title three more
> Thus, I find the first couple of pages of "Fatigue in the Synoptics"
> extremely problematic. The evidence purporting to show that Matthew
> on Mark is simply not there, in my opinion. In fact, the evidence
> does the opposite of what Goodacre says it does: It slightly favors
> dependency on Matthew. If I've misinterpreted Goodacre's argument, I
> someone will be quick to point this out so that I might apologize.
There is one thing that convinces me that Matthew used, and redacted, Mark.
is a great story-teller. His inventions and creations would win him a
novel-writing. That some of these creations are used by Matthew is, to me,
evidence that Matthew used Mark. Matthew is not the story-teller Mark is.
redacts a master novel for his audience, there is some degradation.
On the "king" issue, there has been some convincing evidence that the
of Mark was within the territory of H. Antipas. To Mark, the Tetrarch was a
The Matthean scribe, hailing from Antioch, was an outsider to whom Herod's
title was ambiguous.
taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon
sharing a meal for free.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...