The step(1)-step(2) fatigue pattern: Marcan dependence
- 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
Home page: http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/index.htm