Down Abi Road Again: Studies in Mark, Pt. 35

I thought I would take a break from the Abiathar issue but I found myself having to do at least one more post on it. So here are a few more comments (reflecting on and adding to what I’ve already said):

1. I’ve been looking in detail at the seeming screw-up in Mk. 2.26, the one where Jesus refers to Abiathar as the “high priest”. I've concluded that it does not have to be written off as an error (I should state again that I am not attempting here to cover up some uneasiness with what appears to be a historical slip-up so as to preserve a modern doctrinal construct).

2. Instead, there is a very good explanation as to what is going on in this verse.

3. That explanation has to do with Mark’s movement between two languages: Aramaic (his first language) and Greek (his second language).

4. When one reads the New Testament that we have, they find that Mark uses some form of the term “ἀρχιερέως” (generally, high or chief priest) eight times: Mk. 2.26; 14.47, 53, 54, 60, 61, 63, 66.

5. In nearly all English translations, those eight references are rendered “high priest”.

6. In Aramaic, each of these instances is "רב כהן" (great priest).

7. Thus, Mark goes from “great priest” every time to “high priest” with no distinction between the two – they are one in the same for him.

8. Now, there are only two sections in Mark’s account where he uses “ἀρχιερέως” (Mk. 2 and Mk. 14). In Mk. 14, every single instance of the term refers to the same person! (Thus to try to make too much of the multiple uses in Mark’s work, I think, is quite possibly a reach. If the uses were spread out a bit more, one might have more of a case. We would only expect Mark to use the same title as he keeps referring to the same person repeatedly within the range of a few verses.) In Mk. 2, the one occurrence refers to one person, Abiathar.

9. Clearly, there is a difference between the office and role of Abiathar in the OT and the high priest in the NT. Mark must have known this!!! My question is, Can we not grant him at least that much? And if we can sustain this, then, can we not also agree that though Mark used only one term in both languages, he and his audience realized the distinction? I mean, this is one of the hardest things about going from one language to another, as I’ve said before; especially when you’re only a novice at one of them.

10. It seems odd to me to write this off as an error (again, I’m not shaking in my boots at the sound of that term) when a sensible explanation can be offered. To me, allowing that Mark was aware of the OT & NT differences, though he used only one word in each language, is to rid myself of modern arrogance (saying that he was wrong or did not know what he was doing--the same goes for Jesus) and to acknowledge the difficulties in switching languages. Again, as is typical with Mark, if he had felt a need to define terms or to differentiate, he would have. However, it is likely that in his setting, he simply didn't need to: he and his audiences may have already been able to make the distinctions.

One other thing that I have not suggested is that Mark, in using only one term here, could be enacting a play-on-words. Clearly, in the story, Jesus is talking with religious leaders and is referring to Himself as a type of priest or religious leader. Therefore, to use the term could have simply been a play on words--a play that wasn't interested as much in historical accuracy as it was theological effect. I really like this idea. Perhaps I will think on it more.

For what it’s worth, I am in the main, attempting to show that as scholars, we often overlook the difficulties of translation (going from one language to another), especially if we’re not competent in those languages. Though many competent scholars have been befuddled by this passage, it may well be the case (as it so often is), that a simple answer has been sitting right under our noses.