gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (07/30/85)
I'd like to thank Chuck Hedrick for his quick reply to Bob Brown
regarding the greek text concerning my posting on the possible
historical error in Marks gospel in reference to the highpriesthood of
Ahimelech / Abiathar and the allusion to 1 Sam. It was only after
reading Chucks reply that I read Bobs reply to me.
At the time of my original posting I did NOT check the greek text on
this. But rather, was working from Vincent Taylors commentary on the
greek text (The Gospel According to St. Mark) which Chuck has already
mentioned in passing. Taylors book does not contain the "textual
apparatus" but begins from the "accepted" greek.
Checking the NT greek with full critical apparatus (ie citations of all
significant variations of the text) I found some interesting variations
in the manuscripts traditions regarding the verse in question.
The apparatus cites 4 variations:
1. epi Abiathar archiereos /in the days of Abiathar highpriest/
2. epi Abiathar tou archiereos /in the days of Abiathar the highpriest/
3. epi Abiathar tou iereos /in the days of Abiathar the priest/
4. ** phrase absent **
The apparatus assigns the "superior reading" as regards the variants
above to 1. and /epi Abiathar archiereos/ therefore appears in the
standard greek which is the source for Taylors commentary and the
reading one finds in RSV. The significant "authorities" for 1. above
are Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Both are 4th century manuscripts; all
variants come from texts no earlier than the 4th century.
One may want to agree with Taylor that the variants found in textual
transmission are NOT the results of copyists errors (these abound in
the manuscript traditions-haplography,dittography,homoeoteleuton etc)
but rather, are the self-conscious attempts by the copyists to correct
what they found to be a historical error in "Scripture".
Allow me some creative interpretation of these variations...
With the addition of /tou/ (by a scribe) and a little hand waving one
might be convinced that the historical error is removed. (Reading 2.)
Better yet, would be to add /tou/ and alter /archiereos/ -> /iereis/
(highpriest -> priest) thus allowing the proper reference to Ahimelech
as highpriest in 1 Sam and Abiathar as priest then and highpriest
during the rule of David. (Reading 3.)
If there was a sense of historical difficulty felt in the 4th century
and later regarding this "errant" reference then the prize goes to the
scribe that simply deleted the whole phrase altogether. Not only would
this remove the historical difficulty but would bring the text into
harmony with Luke and Matt which set neither the names of Ahimelech nor
Abiathar on the lips of Jesus.
That the scribes consciously altered texts to fit dogmatic motifs is
beyond question. Obvious insertions are the "longer Mark" (Mark 16:
9-20 describing the resurrection appearances and some words of the
"Lord"), pericope of the laborer on the Sabbath (luke 6:5f), Jesus and
the adultress (John 7:52f and the mention of the Trinity in Latin
manuscripts in the text of 1 John 5:7f).
That there are significant variations in all manuscript traditions of
the 4th century and later might suggest that the same was done to the
earliest manuscripts and our "best reading" is really only reliable to
the latest edition of the texts by the last redactor.
Evidence of this is that given the Two Source Hypothesis an analysis of
the Synoptics shows that the text of the gospel of Mark used by Luke
and Matthew as sources is not our canonical Mark. Further complicating
this is the mention by Clement of Alexandria of the Secret Gospel of
Mark which may indeed be the source for Luke and Matthew thus making
our canonical Mark a later redaction of the Markan "original".
Further evidence for redaction prior to our earliest manscripts can be
found in the editing of Pauls letters. 2 Cor is almost beyond question
an editing job of a number of letters (5) complete with interpolation
and gloss. Various versions of Romans exist. Almost 1/2 of Pauls
letters are pseudepigraphic.
-------------------------------------------------
Given this, how could one even ask the question of inerrancy ?
What is it that is to be inerrant ? The "original autographs" - they
don't exist so how could deduce this "inerrancy" from non-existent
texts ?
If redactors altered the texts as in the case of Pauls letters then is
the result inerrant and the original Pauline texts non-inerrant ? What
is the purpose of the redaction if not to "correct" them ?
How about the work of the scribes/copyists ? Are the 11 verses of the
resurrection of Jesus and the final words of Jesus something that
*really* happened but Mark forgot to include ? Is "longer Mark" a
corruption or correction ? "Longer Mark" is canonical but not
original. Does canonicity baptize scribal corruption ?
Check any greek NT with critical apparatus - the "accepted" text is a
scholarly guess from a sifting of manuscripts and manuscript fragments.
There are 5000 manuscripts of the NT - no two of them agree.
As regards the strong claim of inerrancy I would wonder what is it that
they wish to prove inerrant ? Original texts ? Redaction ? Copyists
additions ? Anything canonical ? Scholars guess as in the accepted
greek of the RSV ? Where is the text ? What text is inerrant ?
Finally, I would say that even to mention "inerrancy" is thinking
backwards. That is, "inerrancy" is a (Fundamentalist) theological
requirement of the unstudied and uninvestigated (greek) text and
textual traditions. Rather, I would think one might begin with the
text and then do the theology rather than the other way 'round.
To reiterate Barrs thesis (for the last time) it is the Fundamentalist
tradition/ideology locatable in a specifiable time period in American
history (1920's) that is real authority and not the bible.
I submit that if one begins with the bible and what scholars can
reconstruct of its composition and transmission (bible as the real
authority as Fundamentalist ideal) and not with theological ideology
(as Fundamentalist will call the worst case of hubris) then I submit
that the question of inerrancy cannot even be raised.
By asserting inerrancy the Fundamentalist shows the true irony of
exchanging biblical authority for human ideology. Begin with the
Fundamentalist ideal of radical biblical authority and one will never
arrive at Fundamentalist theology nor with anything that could properly
called theology in its traditional sense.
Within the (post)theological tradition secularism is the result of
taking the bible seriously in its historical context (ie the
Fundamentalist ideal of biblical authority worked out to its radical
conclusion). Put differently, the exqusite accomplishment of academic
theology in the latter part of the 20th century is the dissolution of
its own discipline.
As regards the question of historical error, I reply yes, there is a
historical error in Marks gospel despite the attempted correction by
the scribes. I discussed this with a friend of mine that teaches greek
and according to him /epi Abiathar (tou) archiereos/ is a standard
dating formula and the 1st century sense of the text is this - "in the
days of Abiathar (when) he was highpriest". The inclusion/exclusion of
/tou/ makes no difference to 1st century ears. Therefore, as best as
can be reconstructed, Marks gospel has a historical error in regard to
its intended reference to the story of David in 1 Sam.
Gary
"Mark the first page of the book with a red marker. For, in the
beginning, the wound is invisible"
Reb Alce