Yuri Kuchinsky

Greetings, friends,

Our mainstream NT scholarship assures us that Mark was the earliest gospel, written "around 70 CE". Supposedly, Matthew came later, and it was based on Mark. Well, then wouldn't it be a bit embarrassing if the author of Mark didn't know his Jewish Scripture?

So this passage of Mk 2:26 creates a bit of a difficulty. As we have it in our mainstream Nestle/Aland text of the NT, Mark cites some biblical history... but seems to get it wrong. And Matthew has to correct him!

Well, actually, according to Mark, it is Jesus Christ, himself, who had not studied the Bible enough! (Speaking about embarrassing...) Because, here, in a dispute about the Sabbath, Jesus is said to be citing the following precedent on the part of David,

(Mk 2:26 RSV) ... how he [David] entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat ...

But the problem is that Abiathar was not high priest at the time that David took the bread. His father, Ahimelech, was then high priest (1 Samuel 21:1).

And this is how we find this passage in Matthew,

(Mt 12:4 RSV) ... how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat ...

As we can see, Matthew omits the mention of Abiathar completely -- thus, there's no problem at all in Matthew! And the same applies to Luke, as well...

(Lk 6:4 RSV) ... how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat ...

So what's going on here, my dear friends?

Most of us know that the parallels with the Jewish Scripture permeate our NT gospels through and through... Obviously, Jewish Scripture was seen as very important by the gospel writers. And yet, are we to believe that Mark, "the earliest of them", didn't, himself, study the Jewish Scriptures enough?

Are we really to believe that Matthew had to correct Mark in this area? Well, obviously, this is how our mainstream NT scholarship wants us to think. (Hey, weren't those early Jesus people some kind of misunderstood secularists, anyway? )


THE REAL STORY

But the truth of the matter appears to be completely different... In actual fact, it's a lot more likely that this whole problem was created by a late editor of Mark. This is what the textual evidence itemised below will indicate.

So what this whole case-study amounts to, it puts into question lots of preconceived ideas that are current today in the biblical field. In this case, certain dominant paradigms both in our Synoptic scholarship, as well as in our textual scholarship are affected. The scholars in both of these areas have failed the test!

Well, in actual fact, it certainly doesn't look like Mark was our earliest gospel. Or else, our _canonical Mark_, the way it had been reconstructed by our textual specialists (mostly in the 19th century), was definitely not the earliest gospel.

So what we see here is a joint failure of both our Synoptic and the textual scholarship -- these two foundational branches of NT studies.

And this is really just the tip of the iceberg, of course... Actually, this case of Mk 2:26 just happens to combine into one the two big themes that I've explored in numerous studies in the past. Here we see (a) one of the classic Anti-Markan Agreements of Mt and Lk, and (b) a classic Syro-Latin agreement against the canonical Greek text. Hence, we have this Mighty Abiathar before us...


THE UNDOING OF OUR MAINSTREAM SYNOPTIC SCHOLARSHIP: THE ANTI-MARKAN AGREEMENTS

Indeed, the Anti-Markan Agreements of Mt and Lk (also known as "the Minor Agreements" of Mt and Lk against Mk) have been explored in the past in numerous academic studies. They've always presented a serious challenge to the dominant 2 Source Theory, and have even been described as its "Achilles' Heel"... Altogether, there are about 1000 of them!

So, even on the most superficial level, it's not so likely that both Mt and Lk had corrected Mk here independently. (If Mark's mistake was so obvious, then why wasn't it corrected by subsequent scribes even before Mark's gospel _got_ to Mt and Lk? If it was so obvious, why wasn't it corrected long before Mark got to us?)


THE UNDOING OF OUR GREEK-ONLY TEXTUAL SCHOLARSHIP: THE SYRO-LATIN AGREEMENTS

And now, let us examine how our oldest non-Greek manuscripts of Mk treat this passage.

To begin with, our oldest Aramaic manuscript of Mk, the Old Syriac Sinaitic, doesn't have this problem! Just like in the gospels of Matthew and Luke, the phrase "when Abiathar was high priest" is not there at all. (Also, the OS Sinaitic is supported here by some Palestinian Aramaic manuscripts.)

And neither do the majority of our Old Latin manuscripts of Mk have this problem (eight of them also omit this phrase completely).

Hence, we have a strong Syro-Latin agreement here.

And even some of the Greek manuscripts of Mk, including the Codex Bezae, also omit this problematic phrase.

So here we have all these very old Western/Peripheral manuscripts of Mk agreeing with each other across the board!

Well, when all this is considered together, this evidence makes it all but certain that the original author of Mark did not make this mistake. Far more likely, the original Mark was re-edited at some later point by Gentiles, then ascendant in the movement. In such a case, it wouldn't really be all that surprising if that late editor was a bit deficient in his knowledge of the Jewish Scriptures...


THE TEXTUAL EVIDENCE

So here are the manuscripts of Mark that lack this phrase "when Abiathar was high priest",

Greek manuscripts:
D [Codex Bezae] W 1009 1546*

Latin:
lat (a b d e ff2 i r1 t)

Aramaic:
syr(s) some syr(pal)


CONCLUSION

And so, this passage -- all by itself -- demonstrates for us the following three things,

1. It demonstrates that our mainstream 2 Source Theory is a joke.

It's not so likely that both Mt and Lk independently corrected 'Mark's mistake' here. Rather, it is more likely that, in this case, both Mt and Lk preserve their original source better than Mk.

2. It demonstrates that our mainstream NT textual criticism is a joke.

In particular, one of the chief premises of NT textual criticism, as practised currently, is that "the more difficult reading is likely to be original" (lectio difficilior potior).

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

3. The earliest Jesus people did know their Scriptures. And so, this mistaken reference to Abiathar is likely to have been the work of a later Markan redactor.

So this merely seems like a late corruption in the text of Mark, as introduced some time in the second century by a Gentile Greek editor, who thus demonstrated his lack of understanding of the Jewish Scripture.

This brief study just goes to show how little we should trust our mainstream New Testament scholars, whether it be the Synoptic specialists, or the Textual Critics...

Not even one English translation of the NT includes this important variant reading -- as contained in some of our oldest manuscripts of Mark -- not even in their footnotes. I conclude that our modern NT scholarship is a sham.

All the best,

Yuri.

StaticAge

The New World Translation, noting that earlier manuscripts omit the phrase, which also does not occur at the corresponding passages in Mt 12:4 and Lu 6:4, and further, that a similar Greek structure occurs at Mk 12:26 and Lu 20:37 where many translations use the phrase "in the passage about" (RS; AT; JB), gives the translation: "How he entered into the house of God, in the account about Abiathar tthe chief priest." Since the account of the first exploits of Abiathar begins immediately following the record of David entering the house of God to eat the showbread, and since Abiathar did later become Isreal's high priest in David's reign, the translation maintains the historical accuracy of the record.

Steven Carr

So when the New Testament say David had men with him, he really did have men with him, and was not fleeing from the king.

David's story about being on a mission from the King was an untruth, but one which the NT records as if he really did have men with him on this non-existent mission.

StaticAge

Why is it difficult to believe David may have had a small escort with him? Nowhere in the NT does it suggest that David was on a mission. David himself misled the priest, but then again, David had long been already annointed as king also.

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.

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.

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

Wallener

That's quite possible, especially for a hypothetically Samaritan Jesus who wouldn't have had the Davidic sections in his "bible". So...Mark is an accurate snapshot of a mistake that later gospels "correct" as the Gentile redactors conflate Samaritan and Jewish knowledge.

Also interesting is that David appointed seperate high priests for both Southern and Northern Kingdoms - and Abiathar was the first Northern Kingdom high priest.

Vorkosigan

That's a very interesting observation. Weeden's argument is that Mark is a pissed off northerner. Go here for the full thesis.

Vorkosigan

Wallener

Thanks for the link, I will definately read that. Another thought: The assumption that BJ made a "mistake" is premised on the Judahite version of history recorded in Judges/Samuel onwards being the correct one. Perhaps Mark's BJ is not making a mistake (presumably from lack of familiarity) - but quoting from the alternate tradition.

I really need some authoratative references on post-Josiahic Samaritan traditions...

yummyfur

Could be possible. Considering there seems to be a problem in 2 Samuel, etc. on wether Abiathar is Ahimelech's son or father . And no there can't be two Ahimelech's, father and son, as then Eli's priestly line won't be de destroyed when Abiathar is deposed(if he really was, another contradiction in Chronicles), as stated and required by prophesy.

This could possibly show there were possibly different versions of the story with Abiathar and Ahimelech switched around. It's also interesting to note that another problem in 2 Samuel, is that Zadok is made son of Ahitub, wheras in 1 Samuel, Ahimelech is son of Ahitub.

Considering the Zadokian priest issues in the second temple period, maybe these storys were played around with for dynastical reasons, and maybe there were multiple traditions even in the Jewish versions.

Though against this premise of multiple Jewish versions(as opposed to Samaritan) in the first century CE, is that Jospehus, LXX and Masoretic all have Ahimelech as the person who gives David the showbread.

By the way, does anybody know what is the modern Samaritan's take on the whole David story?

Wallener

Samaritans claim the North-South split occured much earlier, under Samson. David they seem to view as more or less an apostate for (amongst other things) moving the center of worship to Jerusalem from Mount Gerizim. Needless to say, the Samaritan version of messiah does not have a Davidic requirement. The Tanakh version of David uniting the tribes they consider complete balderdash and have a view more in line with Finkelstein's theories.

They have their own website, naturally, complete with an "educational guide" in PDF format. I've ordered their ancient-script Torah, should make for interesting comparisons. Should probably order the cookbook, too...