8821Re: [Synoptic-L] Pilate and Markan posteriority
- Dec 11, 2002
> If this is the way Mark got his information about prominentSome trouble, Ron, in your demonstration :
> people, i.e directly or indirectly from Matthew, then we would
> have expected him to know the difference between Herod the king
> (Mt 2:1) and Herod the tetrarch (Mt 14:1). But it seems he didn't
> know the difference (Mk 6:14), or at least didn't copy Matthew's
> terminology here, so your argument that Mark's lack of a title for
> Pilate is because his readers would know it from Matthew, is
> somewhat dubious. Indeed Mark's "King Herod" is an indication
> that he *hadn't* read Matthew, otherwise he would surely have
> retained the correct title for Herod Antipas.
> As for Mark's "Pilate", we can reasonably suppose that Pilate
> was already well known in oral tradition as the villain of the
> passion story, and therefore Mark considered further identification
** Matthew did not consider identification as unnecessary. Did he
ignore the oral tradition ?
** If Mark would have read Matthew, I am not sure he would have
avoided the confusion of tetrarch into king. A king was a much
more interesting villain than a tetrarch.
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>