Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

The step(1)-step(2) fatigue pattern: Marcan dependence

Expand Messages
  • Jim Deardorff
    Mark G., Regarding your fatigue pattern, spelled out by Stephen Carlson as: More specifically, I would define the the occurrence of fatigue in B s redaction
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 29, 1998
    • 0 Attachment
      Mark G.,

      Regarding your fatigue pattern, spelled out by Stephen Carlson as:

      " More specifically, I would define the
      the occurrence of fatigue in B's redaction of A's text when:

      (1) B differs from A in B's characteristic expression at one point
      in the text, AND
      (2) B agrees with A in A's characteristic expression at a later
      point in the text."

      permit me to demonstrate how my Example #2 may have fit this pattern.

      Step (1). In Mk 1:2, B altered Matthew by saying that 1:2b derived from
      Isaiah. But since it instead came from B's copying of Mt 11:10, this was
      characteristic of B's editorial style of borrowing from Matthew.

      Step (2). At Mk 1:3 B resumed the following of Mt 3:3.

      The reason we know that the writer of Mark did not derive 1:2b from the LXX
      is twofold: (a) It agrees more closely with Matthew's version than with the
      versions of the LXX we know of; (b) If he had derived it from the LXX or
      from the Hebrew scriptures, he would have known it came from Malachi, not
      from Isaiah.

      Jim Deardorff
      Corvallis, Oregon
      E-mail: deardorj@...
      Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.