Arguments Against The Farrer Theory

Arguments for such a creative rewriting of Matthew and Mark makes sense of the order of Luke but does not in itself provide a firmly sound basis for the theory. It is worth noting that proponents of the Farrer theory often have to argue against earlier theories refusing the dependence of Matthew and Luke, which often makes the arguments have a character of defense. The next argument is thus also a defense against the accusation that Luke is ignorant of Matthew’s additions to Mark. Such ignorance would promptly dismiss the theory, since, as Farrer pointed out, there has to be proof of a good deal of common material, somewhat verbatim, to assert a dependence between the two evangelists. Goodacre refuse this argument by pointing to the fact that Luke often prefers Matthew’s version to Mark’s in the triple tradition. The reason why proponents of the two-source theory dismiss this fact is that the major agreements, as described above, are ascribed to the Mark-Q overlap. Such an overlap is not necessary to account for on the Farrer theory, as it can easily be explained by Luke copying Matthew and thus knowing the Matthean material. Goodacre calls attention to the circularism of the argument, seeing that where Luke prefers the Matthean version of a pericope

This is, as shown above, seen as a solid argument for Markan priority, as one can hardly find convincing examples of Markan fatigue. However, the theory can be used as an explanation to the double tradition as well. Goodacre notes that if acceding to the Farrer hypothesis, one would expect to find editorial fatigue in Luke’s use of Matthew in the same way as in their use of Mark respectively. There are several examples of this, but we shall focus on a single example to understand the depth of the argument. Let us take a look at the Parable of the Talents/Pounds in Matt 25:14-30 and Luke