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.davidmartin wrote: ↑Wed Apr 24, 2024 1:04 am 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)
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:
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.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.
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.
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.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
It's not a quibble as explained in my first comment in this post above.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
Best,
Ken