Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Steven,

Yes, this is another problem in this passage... You're right that the text of 1 Samuel doesn't really say that David had any other men with him.

But I'd prefer to deal with this other problem later. One thing at a time...

Best,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

So what's this reason, Vork?

And how do you know this?

It doesn't seem so to me...

Your cryptic comments are quite entertaining...

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

It's quite possible, and even probable that Jesus had some Samaritan connections.

But the problem with your theory is that the OT parallels in the gospels are very often to the non-Pentateuch (i.e. non- Samaritan) parts of the OT.

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky

Hi, Peter,

You've obviously put in a lot of time to develop this theory of yours but, sorry to say, I don't think it holds much water.

Carlson already pointed out the most obvious problems with your theory.

There's a general tendency in TC to focus a lot of effort on possible accidental errors in the textual transmission of the gospels, such as homoioteleuton, and other possible scribal errors. But, in my view, overwhelming majority of the textual variants is due not to accidental errors, but to deliberate editing, often theologically and politically inspired.

Also, another large class of variants is probably due to the desire on the part of later scribes/editors to expand the text. In many cases, such expansions appear to be highly problematic and even quite inept. So I think that our case of Mk 2:26 is one of these.

All the best,

Yuri.

offa

It was the duty of the priests to eat the twelve loaves of
the Presence which were set out every day before God (Lev 24:5-9).
The twelve male positions correspond to the twelve loaves. In the
time of King David, the Abiathar priest (Ahimelech, see 1 Chron
24:1-3) had allowed David and his men to eat five loaves on the
condition that they had "kept themselves from women" (1 Sam 21:1-6;
see also Mk 2:25-26).


offa

Peter Kirby

I rather expected a curt dismissal.

Carlson pointed out that D. C. Parker argued that the exemplar of Bezae was composed of short sense lines and that it is "more parsimonious" to suppose that the deletion of the phrase happened once rather than both accidentally in Bezae and also (for some reason or other) in the related Old Latin manuscripts. Carlson concluded that "your reconstructions would have to go back further than D's immediate parent".

This really makes a stronger case, then. If the omission and collocation found in verse 26 happened in an ancestor of Bezae, that ancestory could be the explanation for the omission of the phrase in Bezae, the other Greek mss., the Old Latin, and the Syriac. If the omission happened in these manuscripts due to a single accidental omission of two lines in a Greek ancestor to these manuscripts, then the premise of your O.P. disintegrates.

Vorkosigan, what do you think? You're my Mark expert here.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

StaticAge

Yes, it has a footnote for Mr 2:26 that reads:

Wallener

Yes, there is an issue there, and there's nothing for it but to use some of my copious free time to slog through all the references and see what comes up. And the non-canonical gospels will need to be looked at as well.

Sigh.

Is there a generally accepted list of certain and probable "OT" references?

Vorkosigan

But Peter, you're my text expert.

Steven Avery

Agreed. The simplest text corruption of all is deletion, done initially in one text (or perhaps the Eusebius 50) and then maintained in related texts (this is also the most common significant variant between the alexandrian texts and the byzantine texts). It requires minimal conscious scribal intervention, or it can be a "smoothing" that can be done with the least amount of attention or approbation directed toward the scribe. Oppposing theories, such as those of conflation, or scribal invention, should almost always have the far greater burden of proof.

Since some folks might have considered Abiathar problematic it would have been a nice "drop" target. Sometimes the word itself, as in the Peshitta smoothing making Abimelech the high preist and omitting Abiathar. (This shows that some scribes were looking for a text adjustment method from the Byzantine). In the Bezae predecessor a different phrase tact was taken.

Yuri, in a basic sense any theories of caesarean primacy (if that is appropriate for what is your view) have a number of the same flaws that you correctly attribute to alexandrian primacy. A small number of wildly divergent manuscripts, with the main one being of dubious scribal competence. (main two, on alexandrian). That is why I sometimes find it a tad difficult to follow your basic concepts.

Shalom,
Praxeas
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic/