gary@sphinx.UChicago.UUCP (gary w buchholz) (07/15/85)
>> (Ahimelech was priest when David ate the consecrated bread (this is the >> intended allusion), Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech and later high > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I think this is where you make your mistake. Look at 2 Samuel 8:17 > >"And Zadok the son of Ahitub and AHIMELECH THE SON OF ABIATHAR were priests, >and Seraiah was secretary." > >I can easily see Ahimelech, the son of the high priest, serving as a priest. > >> priest during the reign of David - not when David ate the bread) >> Gary > >-- AMBAR {the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand -------------------------------------------------------------- I can see that I have to be more explicit with these things. It is not a question as to who are priests but who is highpriest. The former can have a multiplicity of references, the latter cannot. Once again, Mark 2:25 "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: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was HIGH PRIEST, and ate the bread of the Presence....'" Again, the intended allusion is to the tradition found in 1 Sam 21:1-6 and this historical period is during the highpriesthood of Ahimelek and not that of Abiathar his son. A modern Bible commentary or commentary on Mark will cite this as a minor historical error on the part of Mark. It is interesting to note what the other gospel writers do with this story. Luke 6:3f "And Jesus answered, 'have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, and took and ate the bread of the Presence,...'" Matthew 12: 3f "He said to them, 'Have you not read what David did, when he was hungry, and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God and ate the bead of the Presence, ...'" This becomes interesting in the context of the Two Source Hypothesis (ie that Matthew and Luke used Marks gospel as a source + an oral or written saying source(or sources) denoted as "Q". This assumes Markan priority and the typical literary critical analysis of the Synoptic Gospels. - (see any modern commentary on use of higher criticism and the synoptic problem for more info)) In any case, at a purely literary level, it is clear that the (errant) text in question ('when Abiathar was high priest') has been omitted from both Luke and Matthew. One might suggest that (if the 2 source hypothesis is correct) that Luke and Matthew "corrected" Mark when taking over Mark as a source for their gospels by deleting this reference that they knew to be incorrect. (How could "Jesus" make such a historical error ?.. they might ask) All this is of passing historical and literary interest to me, but I would suggest that it creates certain problems for the Fundamentalist or Evangelical holding to 'divine inspiration' or some form of biblical inerrancy. 1. The text has a minor historical error, but a historical error nonetheless. 2. Why do the texts diverge if they are "verbatim" quotes of Jesus ('And he said...). How does one explain the divergence ? 3. How does the "Holy Spirit" fit into this. Should he not have corrected Mark on this historical error not to mention a misquote of Jesus... or did Jesus really make this error ??? 4. Given that the quotes of the words of Jesus are not identical in the parallel accounts, what are the implications for the view that what the evangelists wrote was "faithful" to Jesus. The case cited here is minor but there are case where, in a comparison of parallel accounts, it can be seen that extended discourse has been set on the lips of Jesus. This is the justification for the usual division: Jesus of history / Christ of faith. (see Norman Perrin - What is Redaction Criticism). The best case for the "Christ of faith" is the canonical gospel of John were history-like narrative is in the service of theological agenda at the expense of historicity. For the "truth mongers" I would ask how Johns gospel retains "truth" without a historical base. Because of canonicity ? How does this work in post apostolic times ? Need one "baptize" the Logos metaphysics and redeemer myth cosmology as prerequsites of the gospels truth ? If Johns gospel is "true" then is the 1st century cosmology in which that "truth" is articulated "true" also, "true" to the extent that it can be placed over against contemporary scientific views of the world ? Need one presuppose the truth of Johns cosmology to retain the truth of the gospel ? Is some "translation" possible to other categories ? What are those categories ? Is not Johns cosmology a "stumbling block" to modern man ? Can Johns cosmology coexist with "scientific" views of the world ? For whom is this possible. On a more fundamental level I would ask why this extra-biblical hermeneutic of inerrancy is applied to the biblical text. The text nowhere says that it is inerrant. The text nowhere says what books are to be inerrant. The canon itself is a post apostolic, extra-biblical 4th century creation subject to, one might say, socio-political exigencies more than anything else. There are no extant ancient texts that describe criteria of canonical inclusion. The best any ancient author can do (such as Eusebius in Ecclesiastical History ~335AD) is to cite the list of "accepted texts" and say post facto that these texts(books) have been "traditionally used". But as regards reasons why "these" texts are used (canonical) he can give no other reason than tradition - used in worship and read in churches. For my part, I think the justification for the canon should find its rightful place in secular history. We do have the specifically Roman canon and not the canon of Marcion or other traditions (there are a number of differing canonical list(S) that survive (such as Muratorian Fragment ~400AD)) Rome was the most powerful socio-political and military entity at that time. Might is right. The socio-political winners write history, define truth and canons of truth. The irony of this whole thing is that the Evangelicals and Fundamentalists assert the Bible(canon) as the "divine Word of God" over against "traditions of men" but what could the Bible or canon be other than the 'traditions of men' ? To reiterate Barrs comment on the Fundamentalist tradition, one must say that this(tradition) and not the Bible is really the supreme and inerrant authority in Fundamentalism. The "inerrant" hermeneutic has no biblical warrant. If it is clear that Matthew and Luke "correct" material they take over from Mark in their gospel composition (as the above example may suggest) then what view do *they* have of the authority of Marks gospel ? Is it(Mark) Scripture ? Is it inerrant ?? Then why was this (errant) reference to Abiathar in Mark removed from the lips of Jesus in Matthew and Luke ? Why must the Bible be inerrant ? What is the justification ? What are the implications/ramifications if the Bible is not inerrant ? As a final comment, for those who claim inerrancy or "Word of God" for the text, it is interesting to speculate as to the status of those culturally determined and time conditioned ideas/practices/notions that "tag along" and are raised to divinity with the rest of the text. What about the "biblical view of women" ? - divinely inspired by God or cultural baggage tagging along for the ride to be elevated as "Word of God". The thesis that the Bible contains oppressive human ideologies is worked out in detail for the feminist case by E. Schussler-Fiorenza in: In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins. I would highly recommend this book to 'inerrant' Fundamentalists and that wonderful woman who sent me the note saying that she "learned theology at the *feet* of her husband". Gary "The proficiency of our finest scholars, their heedless industry, their heads smoking day and night, their very craftsmanship- how often all of this lies in the desire to keep something hidden from oneself ? Science as a means of self-narcosis: do you have experience of that ?" --Nietzsche