The Circularity of “Editorial Fatigue”
Synoptic Problem: Markan Priority Defies Logic (Part 9/13)
What Is Editorial Fatigue?
The most decisive indicator of Markan Priority is evidence that Matthew and Luke made characteristic changes in the early part of pericopae where they were rewriting Mark, lapsing into the wording of their source later in the same pericopae, so producing an inconsistency or an incoherence that betrayed their knowledge of Mark. — Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, p. 82.
The concept known as “editorial fatigue” has grown in popularity in recent years after being advanced most prominently by Religious Studies scholar, Dr. Mark Goodacre. Editorial fatigue has been described as the situation where “an author inadvertently betrays his use of a source by making characteristic changes at the beginning of a passage and then reverting to the source’s wording later in the same passage.”¹ The more the changes observed are considered “characteristic” of the allegedly second author, the more “persuasive” the case. An important assumption with editorial fatigue arguments is that the latter author is trying to “make improvements” to what has come before. Editorial Fatigue has been put forth as one of the strongest surviving arguments in support of Markan Priority. In many circles, it’s considered decisive.² However, on the issue of establishing priority (any priority), editorial fatigue is a logical fallacy.
Editorial Fatigue Is Another Fallacy
The Minimum Requirements
The minimally logically necessary requirements for editorial fatigue are as follows: 1) an internally consistent passage in one source, and 2) an analogous passage in another source which is not internally consistent. This is critical to understand. All of the examples of editorial fatigue given by the proponents to establish Marcan Priority logically require these two elements, even if this is never explicitly stated. That’s because if both sources are consistent or both are inconsistent in different places, there is no pattern and therefore no case. But if it’s not already clear, we’ll examine in a moment why this is fatal for editorial fatigue (at least as an indicator of priority).
There’s arguably a third element, though for charitable reasons, I stop short of calling it a requirement. And that is 3) clear evidence of copying between the examples. Professor Goodacre describes editorial fatigue as “a phenomenon that will inevitably occur when a writer is heavily dependent on another’s work. In telling the same story as his predecessor, a writer makes changes in the early stages which he is unable to sustain throughout.”³ In most of the examples referenced, the writer appears to be making a “characteristic” change early. In these sections, the writer is presumably trying to correct or improve a story fact (e.g. Luke setting the town to Bethsaida rather than “a deserted place”). Later, however, the writer “fatigues” and simply resorts to copying the source text as is.
The reason I stop short of stating this as a “requirement” is that there are some examples that have been given to support editorial fatigue where there is no clear evidence of any literary copying. The examples I’ve seen are most often in the double tradition (e.g. Parable of the Talents/Minas discussed later). For this, and a number of other reasons, these arguments are less persuasive even where the framing is accepted. Nonetheless, the “gist” is always that the “later” author starts out purportedly trying to change the story and then botches it later due to “fatigue.”
Some Examples of the “Phenomenon”
In the examples above, there is an internally consistent passage of Mark compared with the internally inconsistent analogous passage in Matthew and Luke, thus meeting the minimum requirements. And in both cases, the observation appears to show the “later” writer resorting to copying at the end of the pericope. For the “Stilling of the Storm” example, the argument goes that Matthew, copying Mark, started by changing the word “windstorm” to his characteristic word “earthquake.” However, later in the passage, he fatigued and reverted to his previous copying without reconciling “rebuked the winds” with the “earthquake” reference.⁴ Same with the second example: Luke, copies the internally consistent Mark, starts with a characteristic change, but then fatigues and reverts.
On Markan Priority, Editorial Fatigue Is Circular & Proves Nothing
At quick glance, this seems like compelling evidence. This is especially so when juxtaposed with what is known about the 1st and 2nd century scribal process. But the problem with this argument, and all editorial fatigue arguments of this kind, is that it presumes what it’s trying to prove. That is, if the argument of editorial fatigue is being advanced to prove that Mark wrote first and that Matthew/Luke followed-on attempting to “improve” Mark, then the argument is circular (and therefore unpersuasive). That’s because the case can only made where one already presumes Mark is first. In short, one cannot make this argument unless one already assumes Mark wrote first. This is not to say the argument is logically wrong — circular arguments are neither right or wrong — only that it has no logical force and proves nothing. It simply begs the original question: who wrote first?
What Does This Prove?
The example above is argued as a “one of the most striking” examples of editorial fatigue.⁵ In this example “the Cleansing of the Leper,” Matthew again contains the inconsistent passage. It’s argued that Matthew starts by introducing the “large crowds,” a favorite of Matthew. But as he moves on in the passage he slips into an “inexplicable” contradiction when Jesus commands the leper to “tell no one.” Mark, on the other hand, has no crowds and so he avoids the contradiction. Again, setting aside the strength of the argument for a moment (e.g., is it really “inexplicable” to give a future directive to tell no one at the place you are going?), the focus here again is on which priority case makes most sense? Is it Matthew seeing Mark, adding his favorite “crowds” motif and then lapsing and forgetting to carry it through? Or is it Mark, seeing a potential contradiction in Matthew, and removing the “large crowds” reference? We can’t go through every example, but suffice it to say, this is the same question we must ask for every case.
But There Are Even More Problems
Even setting aside circularity, there are other less obvious problems with editorial fatigue. As discussed above, we have an internally consistent passage we need to reconcile with an internally inconsistent one. Without making any assumptions about priority first — the right way to do this — we have at two logically viable options:
- Option 1, we can assume that the later copier started out with the intent to make changes to a consistent document, then lapsed/fatigued in making those changes thus producing an inconsistent one.
- Option 2, we can assume that the later copier saw the errors in the earlier inconsistent document, then systematically fixed them, producing a consistent one.
It’s notable, that the examples given all show Mark as being the internally consistent document. If such comparisons were to prove anything (and I’m not convinced they do), then the logically tighter argument (by Occam’s Razor) would reason that the internally consistent passages are the latter ones. Wouldn’t it be more likely to suspect the earlier source as being the error prone one?
The lack of “reversibility” has been cited as a strength of the editorial fatigue argument.⁶ But the fact we don’t see the “phenomenon” in the reverse (Mark “fatiguing” with Matthew) only reinforces the reasonable assumption that the consistent passages came later. This certainly fits with the editorial fatigue proponent’s oft-repeated views that latter authors try to fix or improve previous ones. But I leave it to you to decide which of Options 1 and 2 is most compelling. And that’s the idea. We can reach whatever conclusion we want here, so long as we get to pick up front which one we want to be first. As fun as that seems, it’s of absolutely no probative value whatsoever (on the issue of priority).
It Presumes a “Change”
In “Fatigue in the Synoptics,” there is the following argument: “…Matthew and Luke appear to be making characteristic changes at the beginning of a pericope.” Thus, the editorial fatigue framework presumes the “change” — again making it circular on the issue of establishing priority. It looks to find a “characteristic change” that an author “typically makes.” For example, in the case of Matthew, it is argued that he makes “changes” to Mark to add the word “earthquake.” Of course, if Matthew was first, then he wouldn’t be Matthew “changing” anything. This is obviously logically flawed, but yet it seems to sail by uncritically.
An Even Bigger Problem If We Assume “Micro-Conflation”
Let’s briefly return to the “Cleansing of the Leper” example, this time adding in Luke.⁷ There is another observation that is worth examining. In Matthew, the passage reads “the leprosy was cleansed.” In Luke, the passage reads, “the leprosy left him.” But in Mark, the passage reads “the leprosy left him and he was cleansed.” Thus it appears in this example that Mark has not only resolved the inconsistencies, but that he’s harmonized the passages, borrowing relevant parts from both. We want to keep this notion of “harmonization”/“resolving inconsistencies” in mind when we later examine motivations for why Mark would have written the Gospel he did.
If Mark blended the two accounts here, in addition to removing inconsistencies, it would be striking evidence against Markan Priority. However, to have done so would have required Mark to go back and forth between the two or more sources (most likely on scrolls, though wax tablets are also possible) on a single pericope. This concept, known as “micro-conflation” has been argued to have been untenable and thus unused in the first century.⁸ However, that viewpoint has recently received a much more persuasive withering attack.⁹ We can’t go heavily into that subject in this analysis, but suffice it to say that all of the Synoptic Problem hypothesis assume and require some element of micro-conflation. And there is plenty of evidence this was doable in the first century.
Editorial Fatigue Is Not Entirely Useless
As we’ve pointed out, editorial fatigue cannot logically be used as an argument for priority, given the necessary presumption that the source to be proven is already first — and where changing that presumption also leads to a reasonable and viable answer.¹⁰ However, that does not mean editorial fatigue has no value. As we’ll discuss, arguments like editorial fatigue may be helpful in supporting cases where priority is already well-established or taken-for-granted, although the counter arguments are also quite reasonable. But to be clear, it’s fallacious to use the observation as the basis for establishing that priority.
Does the Argument Defeat Itself?
Before moving on, there’s one last issue that should be troublesome to those paying close attention. That is, the core assumption of editorial fatigue, that a later writer is intentionally making a “characteristic” change, seems to be undermined by the argument itself. We start with a passage where the author presumably sees something they care enough about to change. And then we end with a passage where the thing that mattered to them enough to change previously is suddenly forgotten and not changed? This is a minor point overall, but it’s nonetheless an inconsistency. It would perhaps be more compelling if the argument was that editorial fatigue occurs at random, where authors are indifferent to the passages. (Of course, this has its own set of problems for the advocates, and may be a reason why it’s not argued.)
All told, this is pretty devastating for the editorial fatigue advocates who cite the “phenomenon” as a basis for Markan Priority.¹¹ It’s a fallacy. At best it proves nothing, and it may in fact prove the opposite. And, importantly, this provides no evidence moving us to reject our null hypothesis, nor rebut our prima facie case for Matthean Priority.
We’ll turn next to the remaining live argument for Markan Priority: Mark’s Redaction and Omission Profile (Part 10/13).
[1]: Four Views, p. 50
[2]: Mark Goodacre, The Synoptic Problem: A Way Through the Maze, p. 82.
[3]: Mark Goodacre, Fatigue in the Synoptics (This article first appeared in New Testament Studies 44 (1998), pp. 45–58).
[4]: There are other problems with these arguments even where we accept the premises as framed (e.g. — it’s not even clear that an earthquake in the water is fundamentally inconsistent with winds in need of rebuke). In any event, those analyses are beyond our scope. We need not reach them because the editorial fatigue argument fails without this.
[5]: Fatigue in the Synoptics, p. 47
[6]: Fatigue in the Synoptics, p. 52
[7]: We’re not looking for inconsistencies here, though Luke does take place in one of the cities and so presumably that’s an inconsistency as well?
[8]: R. A. Derrenbacker, Jr., Ancient Compositional Practices and the Synoptic Problem (BETL 186; Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 257.
[9]: James W. Barker, Ancient Compositional Practices and the Gospels: A Reassessment. Journal of Biblical Literature 1 April 2016; 135 (1): 109–121. doi: https://doi.org/10.15699/jbl.1351.2016.2922
[10]: Later we’ll discuss a very narrow exception to this circularity problem — cases where there is such an unequivocal, statistically significant tendency (or tendencies) that alternatives to the hypothesis are scientifically untenable. These require very large sample sizes, and lack of reversibility. Such cases are exceedingly rare, and don’t seem to exist in the Synoptic Problem but I mention this exception here for completeness.
[11]: It bears repeating that this is not an attack on Professor Goodacre, his colleagues, or any person individually. The logical arguments are what they are, but that in no way is meant to cast aspersions on the people who’ve dedicated their lives to studying this subject. I cannot state enough how much respect I have for, especially, Professor Goodacre. If I have a problem at all, it’s with the flock of people who blindly accept these arguments without even the slightest of scrutiny (again, despite the intellectually honest invitation to challenge them from Professor Goodacre).
