Gospel priority

[Ken Olson]

ok, this is the alternative explanation:
* Thomas or something like it (I'm generous) is original
* Ev which precedes Luke wishes to incorporate the pre-existing parables (which must precede the writing of Ev in any case)
* Ev lacked the interpretation of the parable originally, the interpretation was added when Ev became Luke (fatigue occurs here)
* Your point 4 yes, Mark knew Ev (I guess not Luke)

Mark and Luke have both the Parable and the Interpretation of the Parable. Thomas does not have the Interpretation, nor (you posit) does the Evangelion, so we would need to posit some additional link between Mark and Luke to explain why they both have the Interpretation. But that's not my main point.

Goodacre's argument from fatigue is a tool intended to determine priority (or precedence, as you put it below) between two versions of the same story that share a basic sequence and have a good deal of common wording.

As you wrote earlier:

I can see why fatigue is convincing as a basis for determining precedence for sure. and I'm not commenting on Goodacre's overall theory here only the one example of the seed, I should have been clearer.

This is called special pleading. You agree the principle works in general, you just don't think it applies (or don't want to apply it) in this specific case, because an alternative theory is possible. But you can always propose a not-impossible alternative to a theory (at least theories of literary priority). We're interested in the theory that is best supported by the evidence.

Goodacre's argument from fatigue gives us a way to determine which of two texts is *likely* prior if we don't first assume that one of them is prior.

In your scenario, you just assert that Thomas is prior and then say Evangelion came next and then Mark and Luke used Evangelion. You haven't given a method to determine the order you propose (which is what Goodacre is doing), you're just saying that what you propose is a *possible* alternative.

I could put the texts any order at all and it would be a possible order. I could say that, for instance, in the case of Jesus in the Synagogue at Capernaum that Luke was first, then Matthew, then Evangelion, and Mark last and it would be a not-impossible alternative.

The argument from fatigue isn't meant to show that alternatives are impossible, but to justify a decision between not-impossible alternatives.

But Luke doesn't follow Thomas exactly. In Thomas it does not say why the seed would not grow, only that it didn't 'take root'. It doesn't say it had no root but it's not unreasonable it was a well known saying, nor the collection source well known
So this is an alternative. If you want I'll say it is not inherently 'better' but it should be considered

Yes, it's not better. It's arbitrary. You want to dispense with a theory (the argument from fatigue) that you think works in general in this specific case because you prefer an alternative which is *possible* rather than *better*. But you have not justified your preference.

By the way, one could quibble on whether Ev originally lacked the explanation. That's a point of interest in the study of Ev that's germane (no pun indended) to this

It's not a quibble as explained in my first comment in this post above.

Best,

Ken

[Sinouhe]

I had lunch with Mark Goodacre yesterday and we talked about John and the synoptics, which is what he is currently working on.

I’m been waiting for this book for more than 4 years now. It was planned to be released in 2021

I liked his article : John's Use of Matthean/Lukan Redaction of Mark – Mark Goodacre, Duke University

[Ken Olson]

I had lunch with Mark Goodacre yesterday and we talked about John and the synoptics, which is what he is currently working on.

I’m been waiting for this book for more than 4 years now. It was planned to be released in 2021

I liked his article : John's Use of Matthean/Lukan Redaction of Mark – Mark Goodacre, Duke University

I doubt it will be released this year, but he's on sabbatical and actively working on it now.

Best,

Ken

[davidmartin]

I'm not wanting to dispense with the theory of fatigue at all, it's simple.
We get a list of the examples of fatigue
Then someone explains how they best show Markan priority which Goodacre has done
Then someone else explains how they best show Evangelion/Lukan priority

As a consumer I'd like a choice and to evaluate the different explanations
I have an open mind but at the moment I've accepted Lukan priority via Ev so I assume there's a way to explain the fatigue in that model. I'm interested in that. As for Thomas, we don't have 4 gospels there are 5 just as if we found a copy of 'the gospel of the Hebrews' it would be included in such analysis and there would be 6, so we have Thomas and it should be included in any discussion of the parables. I'm not asserting Thomas is prior like that's some bizarre idea, as it appears to contain earlier versions of the parables it's an obvious stratagem to consider I'd have thought, you know, what if it is what it says it is

[Ken Olson]

I'm not wanting to dispense with the theory of fatigue at all, it's simple.
We get a list of the examples of fatigue
Then someone explains how they best show Markan priority which Goodacre has done

Agreed.

Then someone else explains how they best show Evangelion/Lukan priority

Not agreed. First, it's not clear what you mean by Evangelion/Lukan priority. The priority of Evangelion vs. Luke? Or the priority of Evangelion/Luke to Mark (which is what I suspect you mean)? Or something else.

I am not aware that anyone has argued for the Evangelion's priority to anything else using the principles of Goodacre's argument from fatigue. The text of the Evangelion would seem to be too uncertain for that. If you know of such could you cite and quote it?

I can't immediately think of anyone who has argued for Luke's priority to Mark using Goodacre's argument from fatigue either, though some have questioned whether Goodacre's examples demonstrate Luke's posteriority to Mark. Again, can you cite and quote such an argument?

As a consumer I'd like a choice and to evaluate the different explanations

And I reserve the right to evaluate the claims you make and the conclusions you draw.

I have an open mind but at the moment I've accepted Lukan priority via Ev so I assume there's a way to explain the fatigue in that model.

No. The point of the fatigue model is that it provides a basis for deciding between source theories. You don't begin with the theory.

I'm interested in that. As for Thomas, we don't have 4 gospels there are 5 just as if we found a copy of 'the gospel of the Hebrews' it would be included in such analysis and there would be 6, so we have Thomas and it should be included in any discussion of the parables. I'm not asserting Thomas is prior like that's some bizarre idea,

It's not a bizarre idea in the sense that many people have held it. But what we want to know - or at least I do - is if the idea that Thomas is prior to the synoptics is true.

as it appears to contain earlier versions of the parables it's an obvious stratagem to consider I'd have thought, you know, what if it is what it says it is

What makes Thomas appear to you to contain earlier versions of the parables [than the synoptics gospels do]? What criteria did you use to determine priority?

Could you quote what it says it is so that we can consider whether its claim is likely to be true?

Best,

Ken

[RandyHelzerman]

The text of the Evangelion would seem to be too uncertain for [the technique of fatigue to be applicable]

There might be one example of where fatigue would be applicable. Exact wording is for the most part hard to nail down, but the order of events is a bit more tractable. And in the instant case Tertullian seems to be quoting verbatim. He makes a big deal about how Jesus just beamed down directly into Caphernum. From Ben Smith's excellent reconstruction:

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.7.1: [1] Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum, utique de caelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat. / In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum, of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator...."

So, when he later goes to Nazara/Nazareth, it would make sense that people would demand miracles of the sort he did in Capharnaum.

But in Luke 4, Jesus returns from his temptation in the wilderness, and goes directly to Nazara. So when Jesus says: "And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Caphernaum.’” It's puzzling, because Jesus has never been to Caphernum yet.

Does that count as fatigue? If so, I hope nobody is too disappointed that it would argue for Ev over Lk priority.

[Ken Olson]

The text of the Evangelion would seem to be too uncertain for [the technique of fatigue to be applicable]

There might be one example of where fatigue would be applicable. Exact wording is for the most part hard to nail down, but the order of events is a bit more tractable. And in the instant case Tertullian seems to be quoting verbatim. He makes a big deal about how Jesus just beamed down directly into Caphernum. From Ben Smith's excellent reconstruction:

Tertullian, Against Marcion 4.7.1: [1] Anno quintodecimo principatus Tiberiani proponit eum descendisse in civitatem Galilaeae Capharnaum, utique de caelo creatoris, in quod de suo ante descenderat. / In the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius (for such is Marcion's proposition) he "came down to the Galilean city of Capernaum, of course meaning from the heaven of the Creator...."

So, when he later goes to Nazara/Nazareth, it would make sense that people would demand miracles of the sort he did in Capharnaum.

But in Luke 4, Jesus returns from his temptation in the wilderness, and goes directly to Nazara. So when Jesus says: "And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Caphernaum.’” It's puzzling, because Jesus has never been to Caphernum yet.

Does that count as fatigue? If so, I hope nobody is too disappointed that it would argue for Ev over Lk priority.

I'm not sure if that would strictly qualify as Fatigue, but yes, that is one case that people have pointed to as an ostensible continuity error that would favor the priority of the Evangelion over Luke.

There has been considerable discussion on the forum recently of whether Luke 4.14-15 can serve as an adequate antecedent to Luke 4.23. I have argued that it can, most recently here:

viewtopic.php?p=170462#p170462

Best,

Ken

[Giuseppe]

But in Luke 4, Jesus returns from his temptation in the wilderness, and goes directly to Nazara. So when Jesus says: "And you will tell me, ‘Do here in your hometown what we have heard that you did in Caphernaum.’” It's puzzling, because Jesus has never been to Caphernum yet.

Does that count as fatigue? If so, I hope nobody is too disappointed that it would argue for Ev over Lk priority.

Note that Tertullian was not interested to report the presence in *Ev of the phrase "Do here as in Capernaum" since it was found probably in both Luke and *Ev. If the phrase was absent in Marcion, Tertullian would have exploited the occasion to raise against the heresiarch the his usual accusation of 'circumcision' of the genuine gospel.

Ceteris paribus, that phrase is explained very good in *Ev, while it is incomprehensible in Luke, unless the reader continues to read the rest of Luke after 4:23.

[davidmartin]

ok Ken we'll just have to wait and see,
The main question here is over the Ev gospel (which I think is not automatically "Marcionite") and whether it's lurking in Luke or not.
i read Kloppenborg's response to Goodacre (in this case he's only defending Q) and all this is good stuff from both sides. Seeing academics with those credentials duke it out is what we paid for!

[Giuseppe]

This is a thought on the "Gospel priority":

It cannot be a coincidence that the Markan priority has been abandoned especially by scholars and/or amateurs who have seen the prominent role of Marcionites in the fabrication of the "pauline" epistles.

Trobisch is an example.