Freethought & Rationalism Archive

John Kesler · 06-10-2005, 10:33 AM

I think that the Net Bible has some interesting information about Mark 2:26:

Quote:

A decision about the proper translation of this Greek phrase (ejpiV *AbiaqaVr ajrcierevw", ejpi Abiaqar ajrcierew") is very difficult for a number of reasons. The most natural translation of the phrase is “when Abiathar was high priest,�? but this is problematic because Abiathar was not the high priest when David entered the temple and ate the sacred bread; Ahimelech is the priest mentioned in 1 Sam 21:1-7. Three main solutions have been suggested to resolve this difficulty. (1) There are alternate readings in various manuscripts, but these are not likely to be original: D W {271} it sys and a few others omit ejpiV *AbiaqaVr ajrcierevw", no doubt in conformity to the parallels in Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4; {A C Q P S F 074 Ë13 and many others} add tou' before ajrcierevw", giving the meaning “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,�? suggesting a more general time frame. Neither reading has significant external support and both most likely are motivated by the difficulty of the original reading. (2) Many scholars have hypothesized that one of the three individuals who would have been involved in the transmission of the statement (Jesus who uttered it originally, Mark who wrote it down in the Gospel, or Peter who served as Mark’s source) was either wrong about Abiathar or intentionally loose with the biblical data in order to make a point. (3) It is possible that what is currently understood to be the most natural reading of the text is in fact not correct. (a) There are very few biblical parallels to this grammatical construction (ejpiv + genitive proper noun, followed by an anarthrous common noun), so it is possible that an extensive search for this construction in nonbiblical literature would prove that the meaning does involve a wide time frame. If this is so, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest�? would be a viable option. (b) It is also possible that this phrasing serves as a loose way to cite a scripture passage. There is a parallel to this construction in Mark 12:26: “Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush?�? Here the final phrase is simply ejpiV tou' bavtou (ejpi tou batou), but the obvious function of the phrase is to point to a specific passage within the larger section of scripture. Deciding upon a translation here is difficult. The translation above has followed the current consensus on the most natural and probable meaning of the phrase ejpiV *AbiaqaVr ajrcierevw": “when Abiathar was high priest.�? It should be recognized, however, that this translation is tentative because the current state of knowledge about the meaning of this grammatical construction is incomplete, and any decision about the meaning of this text is open to future revision.

The Interpreter's Bible, says this of the verse in question:

Quote:

The priest was not Abiathar but Ahimelech, his father; some scholars suspect a gloss, but this is the simple kind of error that ancient tradition and even ancient authors sometimes made--e.g., Plato's quotations from Homer, where the names of persons are sometimes wrong...

As Steven Carr pointed out, the statement that David had men with him seems at odds with the account of 1 Samuel 21, and so even if the "future revisions" that the Net Bible alludes to absolves the text of error regarding Abiather, the "men with David" issue remains.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-12-2005, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

I rather expected a curt dismissal.

Well, I didn't mean my dismissal to sound 'curt'...

I generally respect your views, and I'm aware that you put in a lot of work in what you're doing, and it's generally not your habit to jump to knee-jerk conclusions.

But in this case you really focused on a tangential matter IMHO, rather than on the key question of the Syro-Latin text.

Because even if we accept your theory as to the origin of this particular Greek Bezae reading, you still said absolutely nothing as yet about how the very same Syro-Latin reading originated...

Don't you see that there exists this very widespread phenomenon of the Syro-Latin text? (The phenomenon that the mainstream NT scholars work very hard not to 'see'...) There are _hundreds_ of such Syro-Latin readings!

Surely, not all of them can be explained by the 'copying mistakes' on the part of Greek scribes?

In fact, I doubt that even 1% of them can be explained as any sort of 'copying mistakes'...

So IMHO the copying mistakes are generally quite irrelevant when we talk about the Syro-Latin text (even if this particular Greek reading can be explained away as a copying mistake).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

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.

And don't forget the Aramaic manuscripts!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

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.

But how do you know that the Old Syriac represents a translation from the Greek?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

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.

best wishes,
Peter Kirby

Well, I'm yet to see any proof anywhere that the Old Syriac text, in its entirety, represents a translation from the Greek. If you want to assume Greek priority a priori, then this really doesn't seem very scientific...

But, of course, there's also an element of truth in what Carlson says. If we disregard the question of Semitic priority completely (for now), then there's still the question of how this shorter reading in Mk originated (in whatever language it originated).

Indeed, the most parsimonious explanation is that clearly this reading goes back to the archetype of the Western/Peripheral text.

But what was really this archetype of Western/Peripheral text? How was it possible that this particular shorter reading in Mk became so widespread, and so early? (Since we find it so early in Syria, as well as all over western Europe?)

Again, the most parsimonious explanation is that this type of a text was, at some point in time, an official text, that was issued authoritatively from some important episcopal centre (probably Rome).

In my view, this was the official Catholic text before the so-called Alexandrian text even emerged.

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-12-2005, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

Yuri, in a basic sense any theories of caesarean primacy (if that is appropriate for what is your view)

No, Prax, this is certainly not my view. I don't even accept that 'Caesarean text' existed!

I support the primacy of the Old Syriac Aramaic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by praxeus

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/

What's so difficult about the Aramaic primacy???

As to "divergent manuscripts", the basic fact is that the earlier our manuscripts and Papyri are, the more divergent they are...

You can deny this basic fact at your own peril.

Why is it so difficult to understand that it is only with time that the gospels became truly authoritative for Christians? OK, on the most basic level, let's say that 'Luke' wrote the gospel of Luke... But everyone in the community knew Luke as 'Luke', and they knew that it was 'Luke' who wrote this gospel... Not Moses, not Jesus, but 'Luke'!

So why would they treat as inerrant, truly 'authoritative', and 'untouchable' something that their old pal 'Luke' just wrote the other day? Why would have their old pal 'Luke', himself, seen his own writing as 'untouchable'?

It's a joke!

Of course they would have naturally seen the writings of their old pal 'Luke' as something that can still be improved!

Don't you still get it?

Regards,

Yuri.

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-12-2005, 01:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

I think that the Net Bible has some interesting information about Mark 2:26:

Yes, John, these comments in the NET Bible are quite interesting.

They show that this passage created problems for interpreters at a very early stage.

These comments also betray a certain bias against the Western/Peripheral text, but this is quite common in modern NT scholarship.

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Kesler

As Steven Carr pointed out, the statement that David had men with him seems at odds with the account of 1 Samuel 21, and so even if the "future revisions" that the Net Bible alludes to absolves the text of error regarding Abiather, the "men with David" issue remains.

Sure, it remains for all known manuscripts of the gospels... except for the Magdalene Gospel!

You see, in the Magdalene Gospel, David doesn't have any companions, and this seems to be the earliest version of this pericope.

Here's this whole story in the Magdalene Gospel, Chapter 37.

1 At that time, it came to pass that one day Jesus went through the [fields of] corn. 2 And his disciples were hungry, and, going ahead of Jesus, they took ears of corn, (Lk) rubbed the kernels between their hands, and ate them. 3 And then, there came the Jews and the Pharisees, and seized them, and accused them before Jesus that they had done so upon the Sabbath. 4 And Jesus asked them if they have not read in the book how David ate the hallowed bread, that nobody but the priest may eat, when he had no other food? 5 And, again, he said that the priests who serve in the temple, and honour not the Sabbath, are excused through the dignity of the temple. 6 "And here is something that is greater and more worthy than the temple. 7 And if you understood what the scripture says, that God loves mercy more than retribution, you would have not condemned the innocent. 8 (Mk 2:27) Because the Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. And I (SoM) am the lord of the Sabbath."

All the best,

Yuri.

JoeWallack · 06-13-2005, 08:10 AM

JW:
For Christ's sake Yuri, you're just coming off like an Advocate for your position of "Mark" first, Not! and not an Objective scholar by only presenting evidence supposedly for your Position. I like you because you are a Maverick and I accept that you have a point that Modern Bible scholarship takes for granted that "Mark" was first and too easily dismisses the "Matthew"/"Luke" agreement against "Mark". But maybe you've finally read too much Christian literature. For God's sake son of Bubbebushka, present the contrary evidence also.

The category of "Mark" tending to agree with "Matthew"/"Luke" against the other is only one of about 9 categories of evidence that favor Markan priority. The example you gave here, Abiathar, is a prime example supporting Markan priority based on agreement of two against one. The basic Principle is that Editors are more likely to copy the trivial and insignificant and less likely to copy the controversial and significant.

You argue that because "Matthew" and "Luke" agree against "Mark" because neither has Abiathar this is great evidence of Markan priority, Not! What you don't say is that this agreement against "Mark" can be reasonably explained by "Abiathar" being a clear error to unrelated Editors.

What you don't show here is all of the trivial and insignificant agreement between "Mark" and "Matthew"/"Luke" against "Matthew" and "Luke". Here are the related excerpts from your favored KJV, which has a tendency to harmonize "Matthew" and "Luke", but I can easily afford to give you that here. Why don't you count up for us the agreements/disagreements.

If it's like you say and there's a conspiracy of modern Bible scholarship, than this shouldn't be any problem, should it?:

Mark 2

Quote:

23 And it came to pass, that he went through the corn fields on the sabbath day; and his disciples began, as they went, to pluck the ears of corn.
24 And the Pharisees said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful?
25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?
26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?
27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath:
28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Matthew 12

Quote:

1 At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungred, and began to pluck the ears of corn and to eat.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, thy disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day.
3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him;
4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?
5 Or have ye not read in the law, how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless?
6 But I say unto you, That in this place is one greater than the temple.
7 But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Luke 6

Quote:

1 And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands.
2 And certain of the Pharisees said unto them, Why do ye that which is not lawful to do on the sabbath days?
3 And Jesus answering them said, Have ye not read so much as this, what David did, when himself was an hungred, and they which were with him;
4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone?
5 And he said unto them, That the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

Joseph

"The ability to make good Conclusions based on your available evidence is always more important than how much evidence you have." - JW

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

Yuri Kuchinsky · 06-14-2005, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
For Christ's sake Yuri, you're just coming off like an Advocate for your position of "Mark" first, Not! and not an Objective scholar by only presenting evidence supposedly for your Position. I like you because you are a Maverick and I accept that you have a point that Modern Bible scholarship takes for granted that "Mark" was first and too easily dismisses the "Matthew"/"Luke" agreement against "Mark". But maybe you've finally read too much Christian literature. For God's sake son of Bubbebushka, present the contrary evidence also.

The category of "Mark" tending to agree with "Matthew"/"Luke" against the other is only one of about 9 categories of evidence that favor Markan priority. The example you gave here, Abiathar, is a prime example supporting Markan priority based on agreement of two against one. The basic Principle is that Editors are more likely to copy the trivial and insignificant and less likely to copy the controversial and significant.

You argue that because "Matthew" and "Luke" agree against "Mark" because neither has Abiathar this is great evidence of Markan priority, Not! What you don't say is that this agreement against "Mark" can be reasonably explained by "Abiathar" being a clear error to unrelated Editors.

What you don't show here is all of the trivial and insignificant agreement between "Mark" and "Matthew"/"Luke" against "Matthew" and "Luke". Here are the related excerpts from your favored KJV, which has a tendency to harmonize "Matthew" and "Luke", but I can easily afford to give you that here. Why don't you count up for us the agreements/disagreements.

If it's like you say and there's a conspiracy of modern Bible scholarship, than this shouldn't be any problem, should it?:

Sorry, Joe, but I don't really have a clue what you're saying here...

Yuri.

JoeWallack · 04-02-2008, 07:43 AM

What's The Name of the Game?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Mark wrote Abiathar, and knows his scripture backwards, forwards, and upside down. Conclusion: he did it for a reason. You're supposed to go back to the OT and read about Abiathar. Mark's pointing you to him.

Quote:

So, even on the most superficial level, it's not so likely that both Mt and Lk had corrected Mk here independently.

Yes, it is, since several textual witnesses work out corrections for Mark at this point. Especially if Luke was reading both Matthew and Mark, as seems to be the case.

Quote:

But, in this case, this particular 'difficult' reading of Mk 2:26 is highly unlikely to be the original reading.

Nonsense. There are about ten or so places in Mark where he points in one place to passages he will parallel in another. This is a big one. If you follow the trail back to the OT, you'll find yourself looking at 2 Sam, which the writer parallels in the arrest scene. Homer may nod, but Mark never sleeps.

Vorkosigan

JW:
I suspect that the Vorkmeister is right here, but for the wrong reason. Since we can be absolutely certain that "Mark" as a whole is Fiction, we should primarily be looking for Literary (fictional) Individual explanations rather than Historical ones.

In the offending word here of 2:26, "Abiathar", it's clear that "Mark" has presented a Historical error and subsequent Christian copyists recognized it as a Historical error. But considering that "Mark" was an exponentially more skilled writer than these copyists there may/probably was a Literary reason for "Mark" not to be historical.

I have Faith that the explanation lies in the underlying Greek (surprise) which by an Act of Providence still comes through in the English:

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Mark_2:26

"How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him? (ASV)"

http://www.zhubert.com/bible?book=Ma...ter=2&verse=26

"πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν"

JW:
The offending word:
Abiathar

Ἀβιαθὰρ

Note the similarity between the first part of Abiathar's name and the Greek/"Mark's" name for father (especially used for God):

Ἀβιαθὰρ
Ἀββα

The phonetic comparison is "Abia" verses "Abba". Note that the context "Mark" provides for "Abiathar" very much refers to God the Father, "entered into the house of God".

Consider also that "Mark" has a Theme of repeating phonetically Key words such as Bar Abba (son of the Father):

1) Jesus is Bar Abba

2) Jesus' counter is BarAbba

We have the following solid evidence than that "Mark" intended a non-historical "Abiathar" at 2:26 for a Literary reason:

1) Overall, "Mark" is primarily a Literary construction and not primarily history.

2) "Mark" was a far superior author than his copyists so it's unlikely he would have made an unintentional historical error that his copyists would not have made.

3) The first part of the non-historical name, Abiathar, is phonetically close to "Abba".

4) "Mark" presents Abiathar in a context referring to God the Father (Abba).

5) "Mark" has a Style of presenting phonetically similar letters for Key words.

Thus we have it on good Authority that not only is "Abiathar" original to 2:26 but it was not intended to be historical.

Joseph

"Who is wise? He who can learn from any man." - Not Jesus

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

the_cave · 04-03-2008, 02:40 PM

Highly circumstantial. Plus I think Vork is wrong--"Abiathar" in Mark is too distant from *both* the Feeding of the 5,000 *and* the Gethsemane sequence (in Mark, as well as in 1/2 Samuel!) to be any sort of pointer. Note that the Wikipedia entry on Abiathar tells us that Abiathar was the only high priest to be deposed. I suspect auMark is trying to make a point, and is perhaps fudging the history a bit to make it.

the_cave · 04-03-2008, 04:10 PM

(And note when I say "auMark" I mean the author of *canonical* Mark, not necessarily the author of any proto- or deutero-Mark. Vorkosigan, for example, is probably talking about the author of a proto-Mark when he talks about "Mark".)

Cege · 04-03-2008, 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

It doesn't seem obvious to me that priests had a duty to eat the twelve loaves set out every Sabbath, or that the shewbread was set out every day, rather than once every 7 days:

8This bread is to be set out before the LORD regularly, Sabbath after Sabbath, on behalf of the Israelites, as a lasting covenant. 9 It belongs to Aaron and his sons, who are to eat it in a holy place, because it is a most holy part of their regular share of the offerings made to the LORD by fire."

They could eat it or not. I don't see a mandate there.

1 Sam 21:1, Ahimelech (not Abiathar) asked David why are you alone? That doesn't seem to indicate that the priest saw anyone with David.

Ahimelech says that the bread given to David wasn't what was on display/shewbread on that very day, but what had been removed from display. David got the leftovers that the priests hadn't eaten, if they'd eaten any of the week old bread.

David lied about being on a mission from Saul. He may have also lied about having kept himself from women.

Based on his proclivities for numerous women, I'd bet on the side that he lied about that, too.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-03-2008, 02:40 PM	#38
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	Highly circumstantial. Plus I think Vork is wrong--"Abiathar" in Mark is too distant from both the Feeding of the 5,000 and the Gethsemane sequence (in Mark, as well as in 1/2 Samuel!) to be any sort of pointer. Note that the Wikipedia entry on Abiathar tells us that Abiathar was the only high priest to be deposed. I suspect auMark is trying to make a point, and is perhaps fudging the history a bit to make it.

04-03-2008, 04:10 PM	#39
the_cave Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Earth Posts: 1,443	(And note when I say "auMark" I mean the author of canonical Mark, not necessarily the author of any proto- or deutero-Mark. Vorkosigan, for example, is probably talking about the author of a proto-Mark when he talks about "Mark".)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.