JoeWallack

JW:
Oh, it's a long way from "Highly circumstantial":

1) "Abba" is one of the most important words/names in "Mark".

2) "Mark" gives it special emphasis by presenting the Aramaic next to the Greek (just like Paul. nothing highly circumstantial about that)

3) "Mark" is known to use the sound of key words as a Literary device and specifically does this for "Abba" elsewhere.

4) The context fits for inserting "Abba".

No, I think the selection of the non-historical "Abia" here is reMarkable (although I have Faith that Gamera will posture that it means nothing since Igor also selected "Abie" in the classic Young Frankenstein).

But as Denholm Elliott said in the classic Trading Places when asked if he wanted Lobster or Cracked Crab, "Can't we have both?". In the big picture, if "Mark" knew who Abiathar was than he knew who Ahimelech was so his selection of the non-historical placement of Abiathar in the offending place was intentional. It's obvious that Vork is correct in that "Mark" wants to call attention to the David/Ahimelech/Abiathar stories. But that can be done with Ahimelech or Abiathar. Note that David was not able to provide the 5 loaves for his followers. But Jesus was. David breaks the Ritual Law by providing bread to preserve life. "Mark's" Jesus provides bread for everyone and teaches that preserving life is more important than the Ritual Law.

Another Literary/symbolic reason for "Mark" to select Abiathar is that he thereby puts the Son in place of the Father. So the real question here is who is better at providing these Types of reasons, "Mark" or



Joseph

EDITOR, n.
A person who combines the judicial functions of Minos, Rhadamanthus and Aeacus, but is placable with an obolus; a severely virtuous censor, but so charitable withal that he tolerates the virtues of others and the vices of himself; who flings about him the splintering lightning and sturdy thunders of admonition till he resembles a bunch of firecrackers petulantly uttering his mind at the tail of a dog; then straightway murmurs a mild, melodious lay, soft as the cooing of a donkey intoning its prayer to the evening star. Master of mysteries and lord of law, high-pinnacled upon the throne of thought, his face suffused with the dim splendors of the Transfiguration, his legs intertwisted and his tongue a-cheek, the editor spills his will along the paper and cuts it off in lengths to suit. And at intervals from behind the veil of the temple is heard the voice of the foreman demanding three inches of wit and six lines of religious meditation, or bidding him turn off the wisdom and whack up some pathos.

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

the_cave

These are perhaps reasons why the author of canonical Mark grabbed Abiathar from 1 Sam 22 to include in Jesus' story about the bread, but they don't establish that the original author of the pericope included Abiathar. You still need to explain, for example, why it's missing from both Matthew and Luke.

Correct--so it's equally likely that "Mark" (i.e. the author of the version of Mark that contained the original pericope) did not make the error, but his copyists did (more specifically, the author of the version of Mark which evolved into canonical Mark.)

I find it frivolous to think that Mark didn't intend to portray the OT as history (whether or not he bent that history a bit.)

And I am suggesting that auCMark (i.e. the later copyist who produced canonical Mark) did not really know who Ahimelech was. In fact, there was a real confusion about Abiathar--in 2 Sam 8:17 Abiathar is Ahimelech's father, not his son! So "Mark" (in my usage, the author of canonical Mark, that is) could also have just been plain old confused.

Yes, but Ahimelech and Abiathar are incidental to Mark's use of those stories. Hence, you happen to be correct that they are more or less interchangeable.

Sure, and none of this has to do with Abiathar. (Except in Jesus' retelling, David does eat the loaves, a detail which IMO is central to the pericope!)