|
|
Joseph Francis Alward Allegations that the author
of the gospel of Matthew borrowed and modified Mark’s story about the
beheading of John the Baptist are discussed. |
Many biblical scholars
believe that Mark was the first to record the life of Jesus, and that later
gospel writers merely adapted for their own needs the stories that he had
written. In this article, we address
the claim by one researcher that Matthew borrowed one of Mark’s stories and
inadvertently introduced an inconsistency while adapting it.
The Beheading of John the Baptist
The alleged inconsistency
concerns itself with the sorrow, or grief, (Greek, lupeo) felt by
Matthew’s Herod at having to execute John the Baptist. Before we discuss Herod’s sorrow, we’ll
consider two other examples of sorrow in Matthew’s gospel.
In the first example, Jesus
tells a rich man that he must give up his possessions if he wishes to enter the
kingdom of heaven. The thought of
having to do something he did not want to do brings the man sorrow:
21 Jesus said unto him, If thou wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and follow me. 22 But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful (lupeo): for he had great possessions. (Matthew 19:21-22 KJV)
In the second
example, Jesus is at Gethsemane, expressing sorrow at the thought of the agony
he would soon experience:
38 Then saith he unto them, My soul is exceeding sorrowful (perilupos) even unto death (Matthew 26:38 KJV)
In each of the two
examples above, sorrow (lupeo), or extreme sorrow (perilupos) is
the emotion felt by men at the thought of having to do something they did not
wish to do: The rich man had to give up
his possessions, and Jesus had to obey the Lord and be crucified. In the next example, we will see Herod
experiencing sorrow (lupeo), too, at having to do something he didn’t
want to do.
3 For Herod had laid hold on John, and bound him, and put him in prison for Herodias' sake, his brother Philip's wife. 4 For John said unto him, It is not lawful for thee to have her. 5 And when he would have put him to death, he feared the multitude, because they counted him as a prophet. 6 But when Herod's birthday was kept, the daughter of Herodias danced before them, and pleased Herod. 7 Whereupon he promised with an oath to give her whatsoever she would ask. 8 And she, being before instructed of her mother, said, Give me here John Baptist's head in a charger. 9 And the king was sorry (lupeo): nevertheless for the oath's sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. 10 And he sent, and beheaded John in the prison. 11 And his head was brought in a charger, and given to the damsel: and she brought it to her mother. (Matthew 14:3-11 KJV)
We see above that Matthew’s
Herod would have had John killed if it hadn’t been for John’s followers, whom
he feared. When Herod is forced by his
oath to do the very thing he didn’t want to do--kill John the Baptist, Herod
naturally feels the same sorrow that the rich man and Jesus felt when they,
too, had to do something they didn’t want to do.
However, at least one
biblical scholar, Mark Goodacre1,
thinks Herod’s grief in Matthew is a narrative flaw. He believes Matthew modified Mark’s story about a Herod who
respected John, enjoyed listening to him, never once wished him dead, and was
very sorrowful at having to put him to death. (Mark 6:17-28) According to Goodacre, Matthew removed the
part of Mark’s story which had Herod liking John, and replaced that with Herod
being afraid to kill John, but Matthew inattentively-- according to
Goodacre--retained Herod’s sorrow.
While the sorrow at John’s execution made sense in Mark because Mark’s
Herod liked John, it is inexplicable--according to Goodacre--in Matthew,
because Matthew’s Herod wanted John dead. He writes,
“[W]hen Matthew…speaks of the
king's grief…it makes no sense at all. Matthew had told us, after all,
that 'Herod wanted to put him to death' (14.5).” 2 (Emphasis added.)
The phenomenon which Goodacre
believes is responsible for this flaw is called “fatigue. He writes,
“Editorial fatigue is 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. Like
continuity errors in film and television, examples of fatigue will be
unconscious mistakes, small errors of detail which naturally arise in the
course of constructing a narrative. They are interesting because they can
betray an author's hand, most particularly in revealing to us the identity of
his sources.” 3
I believe Goodacre’s claim is
not supportable. As I’ve noted above,
Herod’s sorrow in Matthew indeed makes sense--complete sense: Herod felt sorrow in Matthew because he was
being forced to do something he didn’t want to do--kill John and thereby
risk incurring the wrath of the multitude.
If Goodacre was aware of this explanation, he didn’t mention it.
One final comment on this notion of “fatigue” as it applies to the beheading story: Goodacre noted that an author’s work exhibits fatigue when he “makes changes in the early stages which he is unable to sustain throughout.” Thus, Goodacre seems to ask us to believe that Matthew didn’t have sufficient attention span or intellect to sustain him until he reached Verse 9, where he was--according to Goodacre--contradicting what he had written just four verses earlier in Verse 5. In my opinion, this is just too much to believe.
Notes
1. Mark Goodacre, Department of Theology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham B15 2TT, United Kingdom.
2. Fatigue in the Gospels, p. 47. This article originally appearing in New Testament Studies, 44 (1998), pp. 45-58. The argument I present against Goodacre’s claim of fatigue in Matthew applies only to the question of Herod’s sorrow in Matthew, and does not extend to, or represent a criticism of, the article as a whole.