Editorial fatigue, Probably Not 2 @LydiaMcGrewChannel
Editorial fatigue, Probably Not 2  @LydiaMcGrewChannel
Uploaded April 2024 | Updated September 2026, 1 week ago
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:

markgoodacre.org/fatigue.pdf

Thumbnail courtesy of FreeBibleImages.org
Editorial fatigue, Probably Not 2Discrepancy Hunting in Non-Biblical Literature: Couldnt Sallust just have made a mistake?Development Theories of the Gospels are All Bunk 2: More on the PassionThe Strange Minimalist Use of Liberal Scholar Norman PerrinIf youre an evidentialist, whats the point of church?Running back to the Prior 3: Arif Ahmed resuscitates the swoon theoryAuthorship of John, Part 9: Could the son of Zebedee have witnessed the Passion?Authorship of John, Part 11: Who was at the Last Supper?Gregors Weak Explanation 1Bayes, Skeptics, and the Resurrection 8Merry Christmas! The Word Was Made FleshGospel Development Theories are all Bunk: Engagement with Pharisaism 3
Lydia McGrew |

Editorial fatigue, Probably Not 2

SHARE TO X SHARE TO REDDIT SHARE TO FACEBOOK WALLPAPER