Vorkosigan

I remarked in the other thread that I thought maybe Mark, who was one delightfully subtle writer (did I mention that I am admiring him more and more? Of course.), maybe had a reason for picking Abiathar rather than the correct choice, his father Abimelech, in the famous error in Mark 2. I think I have found the reason. Here is the pericope (RSV).

23: One sabbath he was going through the
grainfields; and as they made their way his
disciples began to pluck heads of grain.

24: And the Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are
they doing what is not lawful on the sabbath?"

25: And he said to them, "Have you never read
what David did, when he was in need and was
hungry, he and those who were with him:

26: how he entered the house of God, when
Abi'athar was high priest, and ate the bread of the
Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the
priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were
with him?"

27: And he said to them, "The sabbath was made
for man, not man for the sabbath;

28: so the Son of man is lord even of the sabbath."
____________________________________

I searched all the OT mentions of Abiathar, and I believe I have come up with something suggestive. Keeping in mind that Mark has been copying 1 & 2 Kings like crazy in this gospel. Compare this to the OT:

Darby 1 Kings 2
And the king said to Abiathar the priest, Go to Anathoth, to thine own fields; for thou art worthy of death; but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou didst bear the ark of Adonai Jehovah before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted.

Note the reference to fields here. Both Abiathar and Jesus are in fields. Not much, alone....now there is another parallel here as well. This from 2 Sam:

2 Samuel 15
24 And behold, Zadok also, and all the Levites with him, bearing the ark of the covenant of God; and they set down the ark of God; and Abiathar went up, until all the people had passed completely out of the city.

Abiather is the one who carried the Ark of the Covenant to -- where? -- Jerusalem, where Jesus, the new covenant, will go. An interesting highlight here is the reference to Levites, because in the previous pericope, there is the reference to Jesus death (2:20 The days will come, when the bridegroom is taken away from them, and then they will fast in that day) and in the pericope before that one, Jesus calls -- who? -- a tax collector named Levi.

The parallels goes even further, into the passion. In that passage, 2 Sam, the Ark is carried into the city, while David has left it in despair because everyone loves Absalom. David's counselor Ahitophel goes over to Absalom ("Tessio. Had to be Tessio. That was the smart move, and Tessio was always smart.") -- are we looking at Judas here?

For in this passage, everyone passes over the Kidron and out of the city,

And all the country wept with a loud voice, and all the people passed over; the king also himself passed over the torrent Kidron, and all the people passed over, towards the way of the wilderness.

while David comes back to it, weeping, everyone weeping, through the Mt. of Olives outside of the city.

30 But David went up by the ascent of the Olives, and wept as he went up, and had his head covered, and he went barefoot; and all the people that was with him covered every man his head, and they went up, weeping as they went up.

In the next chapter of Samuel, David has asses prepared for his entry of the city to restore it to the rule of the Davidic line (anybody catch the parallel?)

Meanwhile, like Judas, after betraying David, Ahitophel then goes and hangs himself. I had always known it, but I hadn't realized that it was in this flood of other references...

And when Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not followed, he saddled his ass, and arose and went to his house, to his city, and gave charge to his household, and hanged himself, and he died; and he was buried in the sepulchre of his father.

There's a rush of literary references here. The skeleton for the events leading up to the passion may well be David's victory over Absalom and recovery of Jerusalem in 2 Samuel 15-17....I think I know why Mark mentioned Abiathar here: he was making a sly reference to certain OT events.

Vorkosigan

Bede

There comes a time when this happens to everyone. Mark, a writer of unpleasant, crude Greek with little structure who has cobbled together a load of stuff he has heard into an almost coherent narrative is elevated to: "one delightfully subtle writer," and it is worth "admiring him more and more".

This reminds me of Carrier in his review of Dennis MacDonald. He wrote "The scope of genius evident in Mark's reconstruction of Homeric motifs is undeniable and has convinced me that Mark was no simpleton: he was a literary master, whose achievement is all the greater in his choice of idiom—his "poor Greek" was deliberate and artful, as was his story."

I am particularly amused by the apology for Mark's poor Greek being deliberate.

Ironic or what? Two utterly unrelated (and equally ficticious) sets of parrallels give rise to two utterly unrelated (and untrue) claims of literary dependence that cause two modern reviewers (no relation, I trust) beguiled by the non-parallels to proclaim Mark a genius.

Or are we to believe that Mark was such a genius that he managed to simultaneously base his Gospel on Homer AND the Book of Kings? That would be really clever, except that you could play the same game with the Wizard of Oz and Star Wars.

Yours, really not very convinced by this game and surprised someone as clever as Vork has fallen for it.

Bede

Bede's Library - faith and reason

Vorkosigan

Bede, Mark's gospel has an extremely sophisticated literary structure, full of doublets, two sets of five miracle stories (Achtemeier), a set of parallels to the Elijah-Elisha Narrative from which he drew Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem (Brodie), and numerous other literary features. Mark was in complete control of his material, which is stuffed with references to the OT. Yes, Mark was a writer of great skill. That's why twenty other writers ripped off his material for their gospels, and why two thousand years later his work is still avidly read.

Thanks for the quote in support. Although it is a total non sequitor.

What does this have to do with my claim?

I see you are unfamiliar with the literature on Markan parallels to the OT.

Bede, I haven't said anything about Homer. The 1 & 2 Kings parallels are well established in the scholarly literature. See Brodie's book.

Bede, this post consists entirely of non sequitors. Do you have anything to say that is on point, other than a sneer?

Vorkosigan

Bede

Well I was hoping for a mea culpa . But no, I have nothing else to observe except that what you are saying has been said before by people talking about something completely different. Fishy, eh?

B

Vinnie

Gundry poses deliberate reasons for the change, and ones that are different from your own--IIRC. I'm with Nineham in his commentary: I have difficulty seeing doctrinal motivations behind this change.


Quotation from memory//name reversal mistake explains it as well. This section, as I wrote in my paper on Mark using quotes from E.P. Sanders was probably part of a pre-Markan proto-gospel of conflict stories. Hence, the mistaken priest may have been pre-Markan. Mark simply did not check his sources, whereas Matthew an Luke change this.

Vinnie

Chris Weimer

One possible apology is that Mark wrote it in Aramaic, which fits the particular style, or styled it after hebrew/aramaic. It's like when Cicero switched to Greek styles during some of his speeches (especially when it involved rhetoric).

Ted Hoffman

There is something to this - but it must be treated carefully. I think Mark was pretty ignorant about Galilee and the history/geography of the people - but he had an agenda. He was likely well heeled in Greek and Hellenistic education, prose and literary styles. Hydropatesis was not there in the OT and even the magnitude of the feeding miracles (5000 people and Homer had 4500) have no clear parallels in the OT.

But he made mistakes - bloomers like Jesus stopping movements of vessels through the temple, something directly copied from Nehemiah, are excised by later evangelists. But later evangelists also show signs of editorial fatigue like the accounts of the death of JBap - Mark's narrative seems to make more sense. And John adding a whip in the temple scene doesnt make much sense etc.

They may have checked their sources better, but brazen prophecy-slutting by Matthew also has bloomers like quoting Isaiah 7:14 and shameless plagiarism without indicating their sources doesnt make them thorough.

Its not a cut and dried case.

Brother Daniel

One thing is crystal clear: There is no conflict whatsoever between the claim that Mark is a skillful writer and the observation that Mark's Greek is poor.

For those for whom this is not obvious, keep reading. I'll keep it simple.

I live and work in Canada. Some of my colleagues speak (and read/write) French as their first language. Most of these people can also handle English at an adequate (or better) level, but some of them struggle with it. (No criticism of them is intended; their English is still better than my French.)

I have to read a lot of documents. Lucky for me, they're always in English, that being the dominant language here. Even my francophone colleagues write most of their documents directly in English, rather than resorting to the use of a translation service. (Good on them for saving company money.)

Trust me: There is all the difference in the world between a poor writer and a good writer who happens to have difficulty with the language in which (s)he is writing. I've seen both.

Clear enough?

Bede

Brother Daniel,

Interesting point. Are you saying you don't think Greek is Mark's first language?

B

Magdlyn

Jacob Aliet, "hydropatesis?" Taking a guess that means water into wine?