Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
06-18-2006, 10:18 AM | #1 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Burlington, Vermont
Posts: 5,179
|
Was Jesus an absent-minded professor?
I ask, because he seems on at least one occasion to have had a bit of trouble lecturing off the cuff. Here are the relevant passages:
"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. And the Phariseess said unto him, Behold, why do they on the sabbath day that which is not lawful? 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? 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?" (Mark 2:23–26.) "Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thingof the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women....So the priest gave him hallowed bread; for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the Lord, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away." (I Samuel 21:1–6) I imagine the standard inerrantist response to this will be their universal panacea: copyist's error, the original autograph had it right. Would any of them presume to say that maybe Jesus was just human and made human errors? Or will an ad hoc hypothesis be claimed, saying that Ahimelech was "the priest" but Abiathar was "the high priest" ? Just curious. It's of course not a text of vital importance for either theology or ethics. ETA: The ad hoc is implausible, since it says in II Samuel, chapter 8 that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|