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

8821Re: [Synoptic-L] Pilate and Markan posteriority

Expand Messages
  • Emmanuel Fritsch
    Dec 11, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      > 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.

      Some trouble, Ron, in your demonstration :
      ** 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.


      a+
      manu

      Synoptic-L Homepage: http://www.bham.ac.uk/theology/synoptic-l
      List Owner: Synoptic-L-Owner@...
    • Show all 9 messages in this topic