This is the seventh article in a series which questions the assumptions of Markan Priority. In this article I will be covering the sixth point which is brought up in Mark Goodacre’s article on Synoptic Fatigue. The article appeared originally in, New Testament Studies 44 (1998), pp. 45-58, entitled, “Fatigue in the Synoptics.”
- The Healing of the Paralytic (Matt 9:1-8; Mark 2:1-12; Luke 5:17-26)
- Luke 5:19 Luke omits to mention Mark’s house and this results in men ascending the roof of a house which was never entered. (Mark 2:1-2)
- Luke 5:21 In Luke’s account the Scribes and Pharisees are reasoning out loud but in Mark’s account they are reasoning in their hearts. (Mark 2:6)
In the last section as well as in this passage the Matthean content was ignored. Having set forth a case for Markan Priority over Matthew Mark Goodacre was only concerned with demonstrating Markan Priority over Luke. Of course I will do my best to bring up as much as I can regarding Matthew’s account. If you are unfamiliar with all that I have written thus far regarding explanations which leave possibilities open for Matthean priority you can review them here:
- The Tiring Arguments for Synoptic Fatigue
- More on Editorial Fatigue: Antipas hates John but thinks he’s a good guy
- Privately Fatigued
- A Fatigued House turns out to be a Most Glorified Home
- The Sower is Fatigued.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record I have to state again how assumptions are made in regard to analysis of the Gospels. In this case the biggest blunder made in assuming Editorial Fatigue on Matthew or Luke’s part is believing that Mark’s account does not display the same characteristics of the other Gospels. For instance, Matthew states very clearly that Jesus went and settled in Capernaum (Matt 4:12-13), but Mark, Luke and John never stated this as clearly as Matthew! Now Mark does mention a home in Capernaum (Mark 2:1; 3:20), but since he never stated clearly that Jesus settled there, shall we assume Editorial Fatigue on Mark’s part for leaving this precise wording out?
Perhaps another way of putting this is if it looks like one Gospel writer leaves out details of another Gospel writer it is impossible for us to determine if they are omitting, forgetting, or just didn’t have knowledge of the other. This is assuming that they are indeed the one who wrote the later Gospel account because there is always the possibility that the writer with more details is filling in what he believes was not stated by the previous Gospel writer with fewer details. For example, in Matt 12:22-13:1 he does not say that Jesus entered a house but clearly shows Jesus leaving the house (Matt 13:1), assuming that Mark wrote later, he wanted to clear up what Matthew did not state directly in Matt 12:22, which is when the man was brought to Jesus, He was at home (Mark 3:20). The argument is reversed for Markan Priority by stating that Matthew suffered Editorial Fatigue and left the house out of his account. Basically what we have in chess terms is a stalemate. Did Matthew suffer Fatigue or did Mark clarify Matthew?
This is the same blunder which continues to perpetuate itself in Mark Goodacre’s article. In setting the stage and defining the scope as a focus on Editorial Fatigue, one loses track of the other possibilities which exist outside of the borders of that argument. In other words we cannot prove that Editorial Fatigue is a reason for differences, because there are other explanations to account for those differences. It is a vicious cycle which cannot rest. An image of raking leaves in the wind comes to mind.
There is another more subtle assumption when discussing the phantom house of Matthew and Luke in this section. It has to do with the rules of writing. What are the rules of writing? Well I am being sarcastic in addressing Mark Goodacre’s unspoken rules which state that a Gospel writer is supposed to address details which we cannot ascertain by the context of the larger story. In other words, why does Matthew or Luke have to mention the house in their introduction if they get around to it in the middle of the story? To illustrate this point think of a time when you have listened to certain individuals and you are at times unsure of the context until halfway into the conversation? The truth of the matter is that we don’t always communicate according to set standards and rules. My point being is that the Gospel writers are no different. If Matthew or Luke seem to omit a “house”, perhaps they do not omit it at all. Perhaps they are including it but in the context of the story. There really is no rule which says they need to mention that Jesus entered a house, they can simply begin the story by assuming Jesus is already in a house.
Incidentally in Matthew’s account he doesn’t mention the house at all. (Matt 9:1-8) We could speculate in circles about why Matthew doesn’t mention this. If we argue for Matthean Priority we could say that Mark and Luke added these details later on to expound on Matthew’s account. If we argue for Markan priority we could say that Matthew suffers from Editorial fatigue, but this seems less likely in this instance since no mention of the roof is quite an omision. We could also say that Matthew was abbreviating this story from Mark. If we argue for Lukan priority we could state that Matthew and Mark are clarifying Luke’s account. The possibilities are quite numerous.
Now in finally turning our attention to Luke and his account of the healing of the paralytic we see in chapter 5 verse 17 that Luke is setting the scene for a new story:
- One day He was teaching; and there were some Pharisees and teachers of the law sitting there, who had come from every village of Galilee and Judea and from Jerusalem; and the power of the Lord was present for Him to perform healing.”
We can see from Luke’s use of the words, “One day…” that he could be setting the scene anywhere in or around Galilee. Luke does not specifically say anything to hint that this took place in Capernaum, but we know from Matthew and Mark that this did take place there. So while we can build a stronger case for Luke writing his Gospel later, we cannot know if Luke was using Mark’s account or Matthew’s or perhaps both of them. On the other hand there always remains a possibility that Luke wrote prior to Matthew and Mark. Assuming Lukan Priority Matthew and Mark fill in the details later. In other words, if Luke wrote first perhaps he wasn’t concerned with certain details for his audience, while Matthew and Mark who were closer to the events decide to clear up certain matters.
Luke also notes that some Pharisees and teachers of the Law had “come” from all around to where Jesus was. Where was Jesus at this point? Luke is unclear but as stated by Matthew (Matt 9:1) and Mark (Mark 2:1), He is in Capernaum. Reading further in Luke (Luke 5:19) we are made aware that the men bring the man on to the roof to let him down to Jesus. It seems clear to most who read the passage that we can conclude that Jesus is in a house without the need to be told ahead of time. After all Luke does state in 5:17 that all were coming to Jesus and we can make sense of this by the context of the passage that they came to a house where Jesus was at.
According to the critics this makes no sense because it does not follow a logical sequence, but not all communication is linear. Examine your own words and see if you always follow a liner storyline in regard to the details of major events. Have you ever listened to a married couple relate the story of how they first met. Notice how it ebbs and flows in and out of specific details. Sometimes the details are in order and sometimes the details are brought up later on. It is entirely possible that Luke is doing the same thing in this passage. In telling his Gospel he begins to relate that Jesus was in a house. It’s really not a complicated concept to grasp, unless of course your so caught up in looking at the Greek words and trying to find their equivalents in the other Gospels. One begins to become obsessed with certain key words like “house.”
It should always be brought up over and over again that the main assumption of the Synoptic Problem is that the Gospel writers were “copying” from one another. The main part of that assumption being that all of the “copying” was done from Greek documents, and therein lays the biggest assumption of them all! It is entirely possible that Matthew may have written in Hebrew or Aramaic. The tradition of the church seems to uphold this idea. Now if that is a possibility then we can explain similar Greek words in the Gospels simply by the translation process from Hebrew or Aramaic into Greek. In some places exact words are used in all Gospels while in other places equivalent words or rather synonyms are used. One gets the basic idea in that we cannot rule out the possibility of maybe Mark translating Matthew’s Gospel and also adding his own recollections as well as other eyewitness accounts which he has inquired about.
Going back to this passage in Luke we could also attribute the “differences” to a process of translation from one language into another. In this case, possibly Aramaic or Hebrew into Greek. In conveying the ideas of the translation certain “details” are not stated in the same manner as the original language and hence we see “differences” in the passage. Perhaps in some cases the translator is paraphrasing and we do not know where this occurs.
This translation scenario can account for the supposed difference in Luke 5:21 where the Scribes and the Pharisees are “saying” “out loud” rather than in their hearts. The Greek word in this case (Stongs Greek root 3004: lego) (Plural form: they said: legontes: λέγοντες) is almost always used to describe a situation in which someone is stating something and very rarely in regard to when they are thinking it, but as I studied the Greek I realized that this really was not the point at all. The point is the context of the passage. Luke makes it clear in 5:22 that Jesus was aware of their thoughts. In 5:22 specifically he states that Jesus was aware of their “reasonings” and this ties it right back to verse 5:21 where he states they began to “reason.” Verse 5:21 does not say specifically that they were “saying” these things out loud, it can only be understood out of context to be spoken or proclaimed. If we let the passage convey its whole meaning in context then we understand that they were thinking these things. As I have said, it is a very simple concept to grasp. It has to do with allowing ourselves to interpret the passage.
The process of Gospel Analysis has become so “scientific” that on occasion it loses sight of very plain and obvious answers to passages which only seem to be a conundrum. It is this very worldview of the higher critics which sees “difficult problems” resolved through the lense of Editorial Fatigue. In viewing the Gospel landscape as a collection of Greek letters which are part of a bigger puzzle to solve, Greek becomes the central focus of the arguments. Markan priority is an hypothesis which was born out of this Gospel landscape and it only exists within its realm. If one breaks down these assumptions then Markan priority remains only another possibility. Editorial Fatigue is in itself an assumption which rests on the assumption of copying from Greek to Greek. If we consider translation from Aramaic or Hebrew to Greek then other possibilities arise. Considering not just the possibilities for translation from one language into another we also consider the possibilities above which allow Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John to communicate in the way they wish without being held to the higher critics standards of a linear storyline.
As always, I look forward to my next article and I bid you all to Keep Ceeking Truth. 🙂
Biblical Maximalist Viewpoints from a Messianic Gentile 