Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

[Synoptic-L] Fw: fatigue in the synoptics, second thoughts

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    Having taken another look at the way the argument from fatigue works in the Jewish trial of Jesus (Mt. 26.67-68//Mk. 14.65-66//Lk. 22.63-65), I am now inclined
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 17 10:54 AM
    • 0 Attachment

      Having taken another look at the way the argument from fatigue works in the Jewish trial of Jesus (Mt. 26.67-68//Mk. 14.65-66//Lk. 22.63-65), I am now inclined to see this example as the exception that proves the rule. Matthew omits the blindfolding, which then appears to be presupposed in the question, "Who is it that struck you?". The argument from fatigue would suggest that Luke’s version is prior to Matthew’s here, which I think it is. On the theory of Marcan priority, Luke is following Mark better than Matthew is at this point. This does not imply that elsewhere in the pericope Luke could not be secondary to Matthew.

      I missed one of the major points of Goodacre’s argument. The argument from fatigue does not show the prior or secondary nature of entire gospels or even entire pericopes. It shows that at specific points one text is prior to or secondary to another, but does not prejudge their relationship at other points or even imply that they are directly related.

      Goodacre makes a second argument that, if fatigue shows one gospel to be secondary to another in all cases (i.e., there are no counterexamples), then it probably is secondary. Matthew’s fatigue in relation to Luke here may actually support the Farrer hypothesis. If the argument from fatigue shows that sometimes Matthew and sometimes Luke has priority, we would have to hypothesize that they have a common source. On the theory of Marcan priority, that source is Mark. If the argument from fatigue fails to provide any examples of Lucan priority where Matthew and Luke have common material not found in Mark, then we do not have to hypothesize a second common source (i.e., Q). Goodacre’s separation of material into the triple and double traditions may have more justification than I previously realized.  In fact, many of Goodacre's examples will support Marcan priority if Matthew and Luke are compared with each other rather than with Mark.  Some of Goodacre's examples of Lucan fatigue in relation to Mark will also show Lucan fatigue in relation to Matthew (e.g., desert place/Bethsaida), and some of the examples of Matthean fatigue in relation to Mark will also show Matthean fatigue in relation to Luke.  This would make us hypothesize a common source.  But while dependence on Mark can explain all of the examples that show Matthean fatigue in relation to Luke, none of the examples require us to hypothesize and additional common source (i.e., Matthew is never fatigued in relation to Luke except when dependent on Mark).

      At present, I’m inclined to withdraw my objections to Goodacre’s separation of the double and triple traditions, as well as my suggestion that the Jewish trial is a counterexample (sorry, Mark!). I still think that "fatigue" could use a more precise definition and that four of the five "double tradition" examples are weak, which limits the usefulness of the argument from fatigue against Q.

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      kaolson@...

      Kenneth A. Olson
      Graduate Teaching Assistant
      University of Maryland
      Department of History
      2115 Francis Scott Key Hall
      College Park, MD 20742-7315

    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.