In Jesus, Contradicted, Michael Licona discusses the issue of ‘editorial fatigue’ as a way of explaining some of the differences between the Gospels.

He quotes Mark Goodacre:

When one writer is copying the work of another, changes are sometimes made at the beginning of an account that are not sustained throughout. The writer lapses into docile reproduction of the source. Like continuity errors in film and television, editorial fatigue results in unconscious mistakes, small errors of detail that naturally arise in the course of constructing a narrative. This phenomenon of “fatigue” is thus a telltale sign of a writer’s dependence on a source.

For Licona, the ‘clearest and most interesting’ example of ‘editorial fatigue’ occurs in Luke’s version of the Parable of the Minas (Lk 19:12-26).  Luke’s version, says Licona, is ‘nearly identical’ to Matthew’s Parable of the Telents (Mt 25:14-30), but the differences are quite telling.

Among the differences are the following:

1. There are ten slaves in Luke, but just three in Matthew.
2. The slaves are given minas in Luke, but are given talents in Matthew.
3. They are each given the same amount (one mina) in Luke, but are given a different amount in Matthew (five, two and one talent).
4. The three slaves Luke focuses on yield ten and five minas, and preserves the one, but Matthew’s slaves yield five and two talens, and preserves the one.
5. Luke places the parable shortly before Palm Sunday and before the Olivet Discourse (Lk 19:11-28), whereas Matthew places it within the Olivet Discourse, on the Wednesday after Palm Sunday (Mt 26:1f).

Licona agrees that these differences can be readily accounted for if Matthew and Luke are reporting two different occasions.  As an itinerant teacher, Jesus would doubtless have repeated his stories, varying them as he did so.

But, on this occasion, a couple of details suggest that Luke’s version is based on Matthew’s, but that in introducing his own changes to the story he has neglected to adjust these details:

(a) Having mentioned the first and second servant, Luke refers to ‘the other’ servant.  This is an odd expression, since it seems to reduce the original number of ten servants down to just three.  Noting that the majority of English translations have ‘another’ (or similar), Licona writes that ho heteros is almost always translated with the definite article, and that Luke could very easily have said ‘another’ by omitting the definite article.  Luke seems to have only three slaves in mind, and this (suggests Licona) may be due to ‘editorial fatigue’ on his part: in copying Matthew’s version of the parallel, Luke has made various changes, but has not sustained these consistently throughout the process of re-writing.

An alternative explanation is that the Lord mentioned the three by way of example, examples of the three main types – the faithful, the less faithful, the unfaithful. But Blomberg says,

‘The suggestion that this expression should be taken to refer to the other “class” of servant (i.e., wicked) is not a natural interpretation of the language. A better alternative is to take the expression to mean “the next.” (cf. Lk 4:43; Mt 10:23) The reason the other seven servants do not appear is that the triadic structure is complete with the appearance of three. (cf. Lk 20:31 pars.) The reason the ten are there in the first place is that Luke’s context presupposes a larger, more diverse audience (the crowds rather than just the disciples as in Matthew).’

(b) In Luke’s version, in which each servant has just one mina to start with, the first servant’s mina earns an additional ten, and the second servant’s an additional five.  So the first servant now has eleven, and the second has a total of six.  When the third servant returns with no profit, the master orders that his one mina is given to ‘the one having ten minas’.  Licona notes:

The item of interest here is that the first servant has eleven minas, not ten. The one having ten is the first servant in Matthew’s version of the parable: “Therefore, take the talent from him and give it to the one who has ten talents” (Matt. 25:28).

This also, according to Licona, suggests ‘editorial fatigue’.  There may be two possible reasons for this:

(i) Jesus told the parable differently at different times.  Luke is aware of (at least) two tellings of it.  But in his own re-telling he has conflated some details with those from another version.

(ii) Luke copied the parable from Matthew (or Matthew’s source – ‘Q’?).  But in doing so he neglected to clean up a few details that did not now fit his version.

Comment

I don’t have a huge problem with Licona’s proposal.

However:

(a) Licona lists a number of rather obvious differences between Matthew’s and Luke’s versions of the parable (see points 1-5 above).  In the light of these, it’s a bit of a stretch to refer to the two versions as ‘nearly identical’.

(b) As far as i can tell, Licona offers no reason why Luke should choose to change Matthew’s version of the parable is offered.

(c) If this is the best and clearest instance of ‘editorial fatigue’, then I don’t find it particularly compelling.

(d) Since Licona is using this proposal in support for his idea of ‘flexible inerrancy’, I would say that it’s better to drop the term ‘inerrancy’ altogether.