The Lydia McGrew Podcast The Lydia McGrew Podcast

Mark Goodacre says that Luke invented a new Parable of the Minas (Luke 19:11-27), trying to make it different from the Parable of the Talents told in Matthew 25:14-30. But, says Goodacre, Luke made up a clunky parable (that Jesus never really told) due to "editorial fatigue," and we can find the signs of this in the parables themselves.

Here I discuss the question of whether a 10 vs. 1 pattern is really especially typical of Luke, something Goodacre claims is a giveaway of Luke's invention. Where would mainstream NT scholars be without cherry picking and illusory "patterns"?

Goodacre's influential article is available here free:

https://markgoodacre.org/Q/fatigue.htm

I also refer to this monograph:

https://archive.org/details/gouldergospelsex0000good

And this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Synoptic-Problem-through-Understanding-Bible/dp/0567080560

Here I discuss Mark Goodacre's claim that the feeding of the five thousand in Luke shows signs of "editorial fatigue." According to Goodacre, Luke factually changes the location of the feeding to a city and then just two verses later slips back into including elements of the story that are incompatible with this made-up setting. So he "ruins the story."

I bring a little rigorous common sense to bear to show how unjustified this theory is.

Here is Goodacre's article:

https://markgoodacre.org/fatigue.pdf

Thumbnail courtesy of FreeBibleImages.org

Today I start a new series on Mark Goodacre's claims that we find what he calls editorial fatigue in the Synoptic Gospels. These are theories that the Gospel authors started out trying to change something in a source but then grew fatigued and stopped making edits consistent with that change. In this introductory episode I explain more about what "editorial fatigue" is and how it relates to the issue of complexity, burden of proof, and the Synoptic problem. I also point out the self-insulating nature of New Testament scholarship which requires that you show deference to certain theories rather than rejecting them completely.

Here is Goodacre's influential paper on editorial fatigue:
https://markgoodacre.org/fatigue.pdf

Recently Dr. Michael Licona claimed on the Potential Theist channel that a majority of critical scholars writing today affirm that Mark wrote the Gospel traditionally attributed to him and that Peter was his main source. He also said that what these scholars grant means that the resurrection narrative in Mark is "carefully rooted" in eyewitness testimony.

The claim that a majority of critical scholars affirm Markan authorship and Petrine sourcing for the Gospel of Mark is surprising. When a scholar like Richard Bauckham argues for this thesis the strong impression one gets is that he is going up against the majority view in critical scholarship. Where is Licona getting this claim?

Apparently both Licona and Gary Habermas are basing this claim on the MA thesis research of one of Dr. Licona's students, Joshua Pelletier.

In this episode I discuss what actual numbers Pelletier and Licona find in their discussion of this research. The astounding outcome is that Licona states explicitly that 50% of scholars in Pelletier's literature survey (and even at that only 50% of scholars who gave their own opinion on the matter--some were silent) affirmed traditional authorship. This includes all legitimately relevant categories in the survey--outright affirmation of Markan authorship, affirmation that it is "probably" or "plausibly" written by Mark. No more than 80 scholars fell into these categories, put together. Yet Licona and Pelletier in that very context assert a majority! 50% is not a majority. It seems that they must have confused a majority with a plurality.

When Gary Habermas reports the supposed outcomes of this research in his recent resurrection book, he makes the further mistake of stating that it was a majority of the 207 scholars that Pelletier read who affirmed the conjunction of Markan authorship and Petrine sourcing! Apparently he didn't understand that 47 did not state an opinion on the matter.

There is also the further inflation of this statistical claim by stating that this was a majority of *critical* scholars, when there was no apparent limitation of scholars by critical stance but only by broad credential.

In short, this claim is based on a series of rather shocking errors. Yet now it is passing into apologetic lore.

Here are the videos cited. Licona on Potential Theist https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0aFUNcF-T8&t=1924s

Licona and Pelletier add up the numbers on Markan authorship:

https://youtu.be/9TMY3VI-K9U?si=VsdfZI8haEI5MNb1&t=1837

Licona and Pelletier discuss numbers and scholarly opinions in Pelletier's survey on a Petrine source:

https://youtu.be/EbBcwb8wtVk?si=fH3_oT3s_HheA5za&t=1383

Habermas's recent book: In the video I give page numbers to Habermas.

https://www.amazon.com/Resurrection-1-Evidences/dp/1087778603/ref=sr_1_1?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.LNu9h_WqqEh2X3drekhNaY0ew2frT1gdqlY8m1meDTZ6z9gw3Zdb8fHHOSATKd5ziDhFMXA-U25AL6Je5BnMMS3KJjoEFG0cOCShiG9WcsTU0PZNqJMlr-QRH5Hb4Aj4sYIjgG9S8B74AavFXe_WN0HhJSfC4UQoN7QqEKS_ohx7fVjk3IoHIznc-kwMD52GRHMybPZvmehWb5XvQkbx5_RxCLTWrNlUiQpY9RnKVqtH0My8NezjeWBMwofZFi1vcnmE8kWcgRkk8T2VThJ3SEj79eqYlcBfew22jDHIHSU.2o9KBvCSWkyY3HjOsW-TKB6Um-kLpjlpN5bzwx4cclk&dib_tag=se&hvadid=414549576473&hvdev=c&hvlocphy=9017271&hvnetw=g&hvqmt=b&hvrand=3920972602515452654&hvtargid=kwd-301749040691&hydadcr=22538_9636739&keywords=gary+habermas+books&qid=1712933555&sr=8-1

In a recent discussion with Potential Theist, Dr. Michael Licona said that most critical scholars, even if they don't acknowledge traditional authorship of the 4th Gospel, do acknowledge that a personal disciple of Jesus was a "primary source" for the information in the Gospel. He tried to apply this to strengthen the case for the bodily resurrection of Jesus.

Do the majority of critical scholars really acknowledge anything interesting or helpful about the eyewitness source of John? Not really. In this video I debunk that claim, first by pointing out that Dr. Licona apparently misunderstands Dale Allison (whom he cites by name) on this topic, and then by reading passages from Richard Bauckham that show that Bauckham is going up against scholarly consensus concerning the eyewitness source of the 4th Gospel.

My purpose in pointing this out is to make it clear that, as so often is the case, an argument for a "conservative" conclusion cannot be based on some surprising admission by the majority of critical scholars. Instead, it has to be based upon arguments that challenge the critical scholarly consensus at a far earlier point. I believe these arguments are available and strong, but Christian apologists need to break the bad habit of trying so hard to wring significant argumentative value out of claims that "most critical scholars acknowledge..." something important for the historical value of the Gospels.

For arguments that John's Gospel is reliable historical reportage, check out The Eye of the Beholder. https://www.amazon.com/Eye-Beholder-Gospel-Historical-Reportage/dp/1947929151/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2P5N15K1P8TIJ&dchild=1&keywords=the+eye+of+the+beholder+lydia+mcgrew&qid=1617757441&s=books&sprefix=the+eye+of+the+beholder%2Cstripbooks%2C185&sr=1-1

Happy Easter, 2024! Today's episode tackles this question: Since the New Testament documents contain no narration specifically of the appearance to James, Jesus' brother, listed briefly in I Cor. 15:7, does this mean that that appearance has no place in a maximal data approach to the argument for Jesus' resurrection? The answer is that it does have a place, but that putting it together requires fitting in the missing piece: The original disciples apparently testified that Jesus left our world entirely on a particular day, from a particular place, after he had appeared for weeks to them on multiple occasions. This claim of the ascension apparently marked a *sharp* distinction between kinds of appearances of Jesus. After that point, the disciples never seem to have seen Jesus in the 3-dimensional, on-earth way that is narrated in the Gospels. This sharp distinction between pre-ascension and post-ascension appearances is one which Allison rejects, due to his skepticism about the *bodily* nature of Jesus' resurrection and his belief that the robustly bodily aspects of the resurrection appearances in the Gospels were later apologetical embellishments.

Combining the missing piece of the Ascension with the apparently chronological list of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances in I Cor. 15 and noting that a group appearance to all the apostles is listed there after the appearance to James yields an argument that James probably said that he had an on-the-earth-like appearance experience like those recounted in the Gospels.

I don't mention it in the video, but we do have a mention of the death of James by Josephus and a narration of its circumstances from Hegesippus, and this attests to James's steadfastness as a Christian believer.

Here is the conversation, which I mention in the video, between Dr. Licona and Dr. Allison about the conversion of James:

https://youtu.be/xHxl1vk4vwg?si=pd3bAPWBbrKw04c3&t=2223