Fatigue in the Synoptics

Abstract

Matthew and Luke sometimes write versions of Marcan pericopae in which they make initial changes, only to lapse into the thought or wording of the original. Clear examples are Matt 14.1–12 ∥Mark 6.14–29 (Death of John); Matt 8.1–4 ∥ Mark 1.40–5 (Leper); Matt 12.46–50 ∥ Mark 3.31–5 (Mother and Brothers); Luke 8.4–15 ∥ Mark 4.1–20 (Sower); Luke 5.17–26 ∥ Mark 2.1–12 (Paralytic) and Luke 9.10–17 ∥ Mark 6.30–44 (Five Thousand), all of which make good sense on the theory of Marcan Priority. ‘Fatigue’ may also suggest a solution to the problem of double tradition material: Luke 9.1–6 (cf. Matt 10.5–15, Mission Charge) and Luke 19.11–27 ∥ Matt 25.14–30 (Talents) both make good sense on the theory of Luke’s use of Matthew.

Editorial fatigue and the relationship between 2 Kings 18–20 and Isaiah 36–39

“…Such availability of food even renders superfluous the miracle at the center of this whole narrative. As Goodacre writes, ‘In short, by relocating the Feeding of the Five Thousand, without being able to sustain the new setting with its fresh implications throughout, Luke has spoilt the story’ (1998: 51).…”

“…Goodacre marshals a considerable number of other examples, all of which involve either Luke or Matthew introducing a change early in a narrative but later reverting to Mark’s version and thereby introducing logical inconsistencies or similar difficulties (1998: 46–51). He goes on to claim that the reverse never occurs, with Mark apparently spoiling a story from Matthew or Luke.…”

The Synoptic Problem and the Field of New Testament Introduction

“…Through the efforts of Michael Goulder and others (see especially Goulder 1974Goulder , 1989Goulder , 1993Goodacre 1998Goodacre , 2001Goodacre , 2002, the Farrer hypothesis has attracted many adherents during the past two or three decades-more obviously in England but also in the United States-but most recent NT introductions present the state of the question in a way that corresponds more to how things looked in the 1960s and 1970s, when the main challenger to the 2ST was the Griesbach hypothesis. As Mark Goodacre notes (2002: 12), Raymond E. Brown's NT introduction devotes 12 pages to the synoptic problem but fails to mention the Farrer hypothesis.…”

Synoptic Singularity? The Chronicler’s Redaction of Samuel-Kings and Gospel Composition

“… 17. On this phrase, see Styler (1980: 285–316), Goulder (1974: 35), and Goodacre (1998: 45–58). Rezetko (2007: 208–233) challenges this reading of Chronicles; Japhet (1989: 442–44) argues for it. …”