Here I talk about the claim of editorial fatigue in Matthew's version of the beheading of John the Baptist. I argue that Goodacre takes a rigid, un-nuanced view of Herod's plausible motives, placing Matthew and Mark into artificial conflict with one another.

I also coin the term "sudden fatigue onset syndrome" to draw attention to the claim that an author has suffered "editorial fatigue" even though he has written only a short passage since he supposedly made a decision to change the facts. The suddenness of the supposed fatigue calls Goodacre's whole theory into question.

Something I originally intended to include in this video but in the end didn't mention is an undesigned coincidence early in Matthew's version of the death of John the Baptist. Matthew mentions that Herod was speaking to his servants when suggesting that Jesus might be John the Baptist risen from the dead. This little detail is unique in Matthew. How could Matthew know what Herod was saying to his servants? Is this just made up? Over in Luke 8 we find that Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod's household manager, was a follower and financial supporter of Jesus' ministry. This provides a very plausible route for this information to reach the Christian community. If this is the case, then contra Goodacre, Matthew did have a factual source about Herod other than Mark's account of the beheading of John the Baptist, meaning that Matthew can add to our understanding of Herod's motives and feelings about John the Baptist.