I have read about this supposed misunderstanding or “error” when Dr. Ehrman pusblished his best-selling book, Misquoting Jesus.
It may not seem like much, but this verse contains an alleged difficulty and to understand, let us briefly go over the story of David and Abiathar. In 1 Samuel 21:1-6, we read about David fleeing to Nob. Here David comes to the house of God and the priest, Ahimelech. At the time David was being pursued by Saul, who was the reigning king. David and those with him were hungry, and David asked Ahimelech for some bread.
The problem with what Jesus said was that the incident with David occurred when Ahimelech was a priest, not Abiathar. Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech, and he didn’t become a priest until shortly after this episode. So, we have an issue with Jesus not knowing the history of Israel. According to skeptics, Jesus should have said, “In the days of Ahimelech…”
What your thoughts on it?
So, we have an issue with Jesus not knowing the history of Israel…
No that would be the author, probably a gentile making a minor mistake. Who can keep the names of all those old Bible guys at the tip of your tongue? (Maybe the copy of the Septuagint he used made the mistake?) The author does a lot worse with contemporary Palestinian geography. That was easily checkable. No excuse for that.
well here is the deal with it so far.
I do understand and I also recognize that there are some parts or big ones within the events portrayed by the authors of the Gospels that cannot be reconciled at all. You can´t simply presumably make all kinds of assumptions to try to justify or explain something that clearly is a mistake, an error or a misunderstanding (as you might called).
However, that are cases that I think it can be reasonable explained. We can´t just be double standard or stablish just one way to view things. In this passage in the Gospel of Mark chapter 2, I don´t know but maybe the problem could be myself, but I can´t see why prof. Ehrman made it such a big fuzz that radically changed his position, or his mindset, I don´t know.
Is there a reasonable solution?
Did Jesus or Mark make a mistake or is there a reasonable answer to this issue? Well, I´m more inclined to admit that the writer of the Gospel of Mark made a mistake, not Jesus himself. Some suggest to start by looking at what Jesus said. In Greek, he simply says, “epi Abiathar archiereos,” which means “in the time of Abiathar, the high priest.” Scholar Gleason Archer notes that “epi with the genitive simply means ‘in the time of.’” It could also be translated “in the days of.” It is also possible that the Greek idiom in this verse can also carry the meaning of “in the passage about Abiathar.” Typically, however, the first two meanings are the ones accepted.
Moreover, when one looks carefuly the scenario and its whole context will observe that the episode of David eating the consecrated bread did happen during the time of Abiathar, but not while he was a priest. In fact, shortly after David left Ahimelech, Saul came in and killed everyone there except Abiathar. He fled to David and served as his priest. “Thus, it was during the time of Abiathar, but not during his tenure in office.”
In the end this is one case that in my opinion are reasonable justified.
Robert said
Coimbra1982 said
Is there a reasonable solution?Did Jesus or Mark make a mistake or is there a reasonable answer to this issue?
Why isn’t it reasonable that Jesus or Mark or anyone and everyone in between were simply mistaken?
Well that´s the case. Once again I am more inclined to admit that the writer of the Gospel of Mark made this mistake, not sure if Jesus himself would do that (I don´t think he did). But that is the only explanation for it? It is the only standard way to view and understand this passsage?
Per Robert’s point, there are potentially innumerable nodes along the chain of transmission where a factual mistake could have crept into the tradition. But, why is it not an option that Jesus misspoke?
Is the Greek readable as “the passage about Abiathar”? Man, I wish I could read Greek.
Hngerhman said
Per Robert’s point, there are potentially innumerable nodes along the chain of transmission where a factual mistake could have crept into the tradition. But, why is it not an option that Jesus misspoke?Is the Greek readable as “the passage about Abiathar”? Man, I wish I could read Greek.
Hungerhman,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it. I have to be honest with you though, I don´t get it. What are you are trying to say by “Is the Greek readable as “the passage about Abiathar”? Man, I wish I could read Greek.
Please enlight me.
However, my point is if this is the only way to accept the “misunderstanding” or “error”. I also defend the idea that some discrepancies in the reports can be reasonable understand and reconcile with an open minded. Therefore, for this case specifically I think we need to understand the Greek word for this which is “epi Abiathar archiereos,” by noting that “epi” with the genitive simply means ‘in the time of.” or “in the days of.”
From Kostenberger et. al. “Truth in a Culture…”, chapter 2 claim 2: “Epi” in Mark 2:26 has equivocal meaning including “upon”. It may also (1) indicate the time the event occurred or (2) location as a reference in Scripture. For (1) Abiathar is the “much more recognizable high-priestly name from that era in history.” For (2) remember they did not have chapter and verse references for Scripture… Abiathar may have been Mark’s way of reference to a significant passage or location in Scripture. Mark uses this method (2) with “epi” in Mark 12:26 “the passage about the burning bush.” A modern example: “when people talk about the climate of American culture during the Eisenhower administration” following WWII, they generally mean the 50’s, not just 1953-1960.
When reading the gospels I’m trying to be conscious that what’s written down was not exactly, word-for-word, how the whole conversation went. According to Mk 2:23-26 the Pharisees asked one question and Jesus’ response was contained in three sentences. And that’s it. You’d almost get the impression this was the only talk they’ve had all day. Normally, at least this is how I imagine it, Jesus could have said something, and an attentive disciple could have asked him to clarify. ‘Wait a moment, Jesus. Earlier when you talked to the Pharisees, did you actually mean Ahimelech? Because you said Abiathar…’ For all we know, Jesus could have made that mistake and clarified it either immediately, or at some later point. The eyewitness could have remembered only the first part of the response and completely forgotten about Jesus’ correction.
What’s perplexing to me is how the author of Mark managed to even put that story together! Imagine someone remembering the exact words of a dialogue they’ve had thirty years ago. I cannot even remember a full day in my life, thirty years ago. I look at all photograph, I see myself on a basketball tournament, and I start remembering a few details, here and there. But I cannot remember a single word I’ve said, or that anyone else said to me on that day. Think about a random day in mid-June 1990. How much detail about the conversations you’ve had can you recall?
It’s incredible to me that anyone could ever remember this amount of dialogue. I guess this is where Christians declare divine inspiration, the Holy Spirit supernaturally triggering all the memories stored in the eyewitness’ subconsciousness. But even then the question is why make a mistake and write down the wrong name? Is that how the author (mistakenly) remembered it? If so, why hasn’t the Holy Spirit made sure that all remembered and expressed memories are accurate? To me this was always a big issue in regard to the question: How important is it that what was written down is absolutely accurate in every detail. If Christians will invoke divine inspiration, it’s a mystery why there are so many inaccuracies.
Coimbra1982 wrote
…but I can´t see why prof. Ehrman made it such a big fuzz that radically changed his position, or his mindset, I don´t know.
Look at it this way. If you’ve been taught all your life that the Bible is perfect in every way, no discrepancies, no mistakes, and then you’re presented with one you can read yourself, then it’s going to shake you. It doesn’t matter that it is a minor mistake. A mistake is a mistake. Shocking when unexpected.
Avner wrote
When reading the gospels I’m trying to be conscious that what’s written down was not exactly, word-for-word, how the whole conversation went.
Ok I state my own bias here. For me these are historical and literary questions. I’m not a believer. That said I think the gospels contain a basic historical framework but the narrative details and the stories were created by tradition or by the authors themselves for theological purposes. Basically I think we should have the same attitude towards the gospels that Matthew and Luke had towards Mark. They considered him authoritative but that didn’t prevent them from making changes, adding and subtracting. Matthew and Luke clearly didn’t regard Mark as inerrant, infallible scripture.
Coimbra1982 said
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on it. I have to be honest with you though, I don´t get it. What are you are trying to say by “Is the Greek readable as “the passage about Abiathar”? Man, I wish I could read Greek.
Please enlight me.
Coimbra1982 said
…Therefore, for this case specifically I think we need to understand the Greek word for this which is “epi Abiathar archiereos,” by noting that “epi” with the genitive simply means ‘in the time of.” or “in the days of.”
From Kostenberger et. al. “Truth in a Culture…”, chapter 2 claim 2: “Epi” in ** you do not have permission to see this link ** “the passage about the burning bush.” A modern example: “when people talk about the climate of American culture during the Eisenhower administration” following WWII, they generally mean the 50’s, not just 1953-1960.
Coimbra1982 saidHowever, my point is if this is the only way to accept the “misunderstanding” or “error”. I also defend the idea that some discrepancies in the reports can be reasonable understand and reconcile with an open minded.
I don’t disagree in principle. One thing to be wary of: Ptolemaic reasoning that leads to an ever-branching succession of epicycles within epicycles of explanations. Occam’s razor is a nice tool – not dispositive at all and often overused, but a helpful guiding principle to avoid the seductive trap of just-so stories and other contortions that we use to permit ourselves to hold otherwise unjustified beliefs.
You addressed it superbly.
When I read the interlinear (best I can do…), I can see why someone might choose “in the passage of” in Mark 12:26. But, “at” also works in my head for ‘epi’ here. As in: “In the book of Moses, at the [burning] bush, how God said…” And, I could also see where the ‘at’ could mean (in English approximation) either:
– “at [that point in the Torah]” (literary locus), or
“at [the point in history]” (historio-physical locus).
Meaning, in my ignorance, I could see how “in the passage of” is only a loose rendering of ‘epi’, and one where the translator made the active choice of literary locus to interpret ‘epi’ as textual (rather than historical).
It’s been a rather vinous evening (alas no whiskey, but the fruit of the vine has not been in short supply), so please forgive my uninformed musings…
I´ll tell you something. You guys are the best.
Really good environment to discuss intelligently all this topics. Learning a lot from one another in here eventhough I´m headstrong and I don´t tend to be convinced so easily.
But let me go back to main issue in here and share with you all another thought on it.
Well, first let me repeat once again that I am more inclined to admit that clearly the writer of the Gospel of Mark made a mistake. Even one of the Biblical scholar that I like a lot (Prof. Mike Licona) admits that his passage is a very difficult discrepancy to resolve. He also says that he has seen so many attempts to harmonize the difference between Mark and the OT is not persuasive and that the statement that Abiathar was high priest meant he was high priest at the time David ate the consecrated bread. Althought it´s possible that no contradiction is actually present, an error on Mark´s part is a reasonable possibility.
In the end the solution to try to harmonize it is a bit of a stretch. Concomitantly, I was recommended to read the following article: ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Not conviced at all.
Robert said
Mk 12,26 is not a very good comparative reference. If Mark is using this as a way to refer to the place in Torah, he is more explicit about that here when he immediately and specifically says, “Have you not read in the book of Moses at the bush (ἐν τῇ βίβλῳ Μωϋσέως ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου).Such an immediate reference or any reference to a specific book or scroll is not found in Mk 2,26 immediately after the question, “Have you never read …”, nor does it seem as if Matthew or Luke understood this as an imprecise but helpful reference to a part of a book. They both omit the reference to Abiathar, presumably because they saw it as incorrect or at least unnecessary or unhelpful. If Mark was giving a very helpful reference to where in scripture this episode might be found, why would both Matthew and Luke omit this helpful reference?
Excuse me my insistence or myself being a big-headed.
But in the Greek, Mark 2:26 simply says: ἐπὶ Ἀβιατηὰρ ἀρχιερέως… epi Abiathar archiereōs… “in” or “upon” or “in the days of” or “at the time of” (epi) Abiathar high-priest… Mark uses the same “epi” in reference to a place in Scripture with the burning bush in 12:26. I personally think this is acceptable as a reference, and plausible given the culture and lack of chapter/verse references. This was a culture with heavy oral tradition emphasis and memorization, Abiathar was the better known priest, ancient historians had more “liberties” with using the “Vox” (voice) of passages rather than “verba” (exact words), and Mark shows in 12:26 that he uses “epi” as a reference tool. But, I respect your opinion.
Robert said
nor does it seem as if Matthew or Luke understood this as an imprecise but helpful reference to a part of a book. They both omit the reference to Abiathar, presumably because they saw it as incorrect or at least unnecessary or unhelpful. If Mark was giving a very helpful reference to where in scripture this episode might be found, why would both Matthew and Luke omit this helpful reference?
Good points…it could also be that Matthew and Luke thought it was an unhelpful reference to the time period and therefore just left it out. Or they simply took the time period as a known entity. Also… the reference to Scripture with the burning bush in 12:26 doesn’t mean Mark was constrained to mention Scripture every time he uses epi. Modern references and writers don’t write exactly the same every time they use such a reference technique. But… all interesting thoughts.
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert
1 Guest(s)