8820Re: [Synoptic-L] Pilate and Markan posteriority
- Dec 11, 2002Leonard Maluf wrote:
> ..... it could be argued that Mark (Gospel A) is posterior to Matthew (Gospel B)Leonard,
> In his passion narrative, Mark never tells the reader who Pilate is, and
>this implies that his audience is familiar with an existing narrative in
>which the identity of this person has been fully clarified.
If this is the way Mark got his information about prominent 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 unnecessary.
Weston-on-Trent, Derby, UK
Web site: http://homepage.virgin.net/ron.price/index.htm
Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>