“Prof Goodacre, Duke University, lists a number of occasions where it appears that Matthew or Luke begin by altering Mark, but become fatigued and lapse into copying Mark directly, even when doing so is inconsistent with the changes they have already made.

For example, Matthew is more precise than Mark in the titles he gives to rulers, and initially gives Herod Antipas the correct title of “tetrarch”[Mt 14:1], yet he lapses into calling him “king” [Mt 14:9] at a later verse, apparently because he was copying Mark [Mk 6:26] at that point.

Another example is Luke’s version of the Parable of the Sower, regarding the seed sown on rocky ground, [Mk 4:5–6, 16–17; Lk 8:6, 13] where Luke omits several elements of the parable, but then follows Mark in the parable’s interpretation. Luke says merely that the seed withered for lack of moisture and does not mention the seed springing up quickly, nor the lack of roots, nor being scorched by the sun; yet these omissions remain in the interpretation as, respectively, receiving the word with joy, having no firm root, and the time of temptation.

This phenomenon, along with the lack of counterexamples of fatigue occurring in the opposite direction, supports Marcan priority.”

Dr Ian N Mills is an Assistant Professor of Classics and Religious Studies in New York.. He holds an M.A. and Ph.D. in Classics and Biblical Studies from Duke University and a BA from University of Minnesota.

Mill’s research explores the tensions within texts and traditions. His forthcoming monograph, The Gospel Hypothesis (Fortress Press), argues that early Christian readers drew on Hellenistic literary theory to make sense of the diverse and often contradictory biographies of Jesus available in the second century.