Fatigue in the synoptics

New Testament Studies

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 1998, Pages 45-58

  Goodacre, Mark ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 60950104061     PISSN: 00286885     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1017/s0028688500016349     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. See, for example, W. D. Davies and D. C. Allison, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Matthew, vol. 1 (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988) 98
2. Thus for many the strongest argument for Marcan priority remains the implausibility of the Griesbach hypothesis, for example E. P. Sanders and M. Davies, Studying the Synoptic Gospels (London: SCM, 1989) 92 and 117
3. and in more detail, C. M. Tuckett, The Revival of the Griesbach Hypothesis (SNTSMS 44; Cambridge: CUP, 1983)
4. The term 'fatigue' is coined by Michael Goulder in Midrash and Lection in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974) 35
5. The term is also used by John Drury, Tradition and Design in Luke's Gospel (London: Darton, Longman and Todd, 1976) 130 and 137; cf. 91, 142 and 162
6. and by Robert Gundry, Matthew: A Commentary on His Literary and Theological Art (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1982) 10
7. G. M. Styler, Excursus 4 in C. F. D. Moule, The Birth of the New Testament (3rd ed.; London: Black, 1981) 285-316; this example 294
8. The same example is used to make the same point elsewhere, for example W. G. Kümmel, Introduction to the New Testament (ET, London: SCM, 1966) 48
9. On this example see also Davies and Allison, Matthew, 107, 'Matthew unwittingly disturbs the coherence of Mark 6.17-29'
10. H. Riley, in B. Orchard and H. Riley, The Order of the Synoptics. Why Three Synoptic Gospels? (Macon, Georgia: Mercer, 1987) 100, attempts to answer by offering a counter-example, Mark's change from 'Baptizer' in 6.24 where there is no parallel in Matthew to 'Baptist' in 6.25 where there is a parallel
11. C. F. Evans, Saint Luke (London: SCM, 1990) 374, notes that Luke is revising Mark's Interpretation rather than commenting on his own version of the parable
12. J. Fitzmyer, The Gospel According to Luke I-IX (Anchor Bible 28; New York: Doubleday, 1981) 582, notices that Luke has omitted to mention the house and suggests that 'they sought to bring him in' (5.18b) is his substitute for it
13. A. Plummer, Gospel According to St Luke (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1896) 155, sees this but feels that 'λέγ οντες may be used of thoughts'
14. There may be even a third example of the phenomenon in the same pericope: H. Conzelmann and A. Lindemann, Arbeitsbuch zum Neuen Testament (5th ed.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1980) 56-7
15. It is seen by Goulder, Luke, 433, though he treats this as an example of 'muddle', on which see my Goulder and the Gospels (JSNTSup 133; Sheffield: JSOT, 1996) chapter 11
16. and J. M. Creed, The Gospel According to St Luke (London: Macmillan, 1930) 128
17. On the lodging element, which is unique to Luke, see H. J. Cadbury, The Making of Luke-Acts (London: SPCK, 1958) 250
18. Explanations for the incongruity are lacking in the commentaries. The mystery is why Luke would want to relocate to Bethsaida. J. Nolland, Luke 1-9.20 (WBC 35A; Dallas: Word, 1989) 440, says: 'No really satisfactory explanation has yet been offered.'
19. I. H. Marshall, The Gospel of Luke, A Commentary on the Greek Text (Exeter: Paternoster, 1978) 360, attempts one: 'The indications are that they were further round the E side of the lake than Bethsaida, possibly in gentile territory (the Decapolis) where Jews might not be sure of a welcome.'
20. Cf. R. Bultmann, The History of the Synoptic Tradition (ET, 2nd ed., Oxford: Blackwell, 1968) 360-1, which gives several examples. Further, εcombining comma aboveν μιαcombining ogonek̂ + genitive occurs in 5.12 and ηcombining turned comma abovêν διδάσκων in 4.31, both redactional additions to Mark on the assumption of Marcan priority; cf. also 6.12
21. see Bo Reicke, 'Griesbach's Answer to the Synoptic Question', in B. Orchard and T. R. W. Longstaff, eds., J. J. Griesbach: Synoptic and Text-Critical Studies 1776-1976 (SNTSMS 34; Cambridge: CUP, 1978) 50-67 (64). But it never seems to be the case that the Marcan incoherence involves Mark specifically writing characteristically at the beginning of a pericope
22. Austin Farrer, 'On Dispensing with Q' in D. E. Nineham, ed., Studies in the Gospels, Essays in Memory of R. H. Lightfoot (Oxford: Blackwell, 1955) 55-88
23. for Michael Goulder, see n. 3, above. Griesbachian scholars also explain the double tradition by Luke's use of Matthew: W. R. Farmer, The Synoptic Problem. A Critical Review of the Problem of the Literary Relationships Between Matthew, Mark and Luke (New York: Macmillan, 1964)
24. Because of the closeness in wording, the International Q Project reconstructs Q 19.24 just as it stands here in Matthew and Luke, JBL 114 (1995) 475-85 (484)
25. 'Luke's "ten of his servants" (v. 13) is very odd, and points to slovenliness at some stage.'
26. The critical text is reproduced in JBL 109 (1990) 499-501