Michael Halcomb recently posted the latest in his Studies in Mark series (a great series, you should definitely check it out!) and in this one he suggests that the approach of “liberal literal(ists)” is just wrong when it comes to interpreting Mark 2:26 and its apparent historical error concerning Abiathar being high priest.  The heart of his argument is that the word ἀρχιερέως can be translated various ways.  He says:

In Greek, this is a compound word: arche + hieros. Put together, the two words can have a variety of meanings: 1) High Priest, 2) Chief Priest, 3) Head Priest, 4) First Priest, 5) Great Priest, etc. It goes without saying that in the Greek, one has a variety of words to choose from.

He goes on to argue that “Abiathar was a “great” or “renown” priest” admitting that Abiathar wasn’t a high priest at the time of the incident.  He chalks this up to a translation difficulty saying:

It may seem to us that Mark’s use of “αρχιερεως” is wrong here but it might well be the case that when he translated from Aramaic to Greek, this kind of “over-literal” translation was the result. In Aramaic, רב כהן, literally means “great” or “abundant” “priest”. Thus, we cannot fault Mark for that but rather we can attempt to understand what happened in the process of translation (anyone who has ever done translation is immediately sympathetic to this or at least they should be!!!). Yes, Mark might have chosen another rendering but the fact is, he did not. We have what we have and before we, in all of our modern arrogance, attempt to suggest that Mark was wrong (or perhaps, Jesus was wrong), we should take into account the evidence before us, especially if it makes sense!

I think Michael is a little too confident in the ‘evidence’ before us and much too confident in his conclusion.  I think it a case of special pleading to take the lone use of ἀρχιερέως in Mark that causes a problem and try to fix the problem by turning to alternative translations.  This alternative would not be suggested anywhere else in Mark or the rest of the New Testament. 

And while I understand Michael’s (seeming) desire to remain in the context of Mark’s gospel alone, I think the force of Matthew and Luke omitting reference to Abiathar is great and deserved at least a mention.  I can’t fault Michael for what he did not say but I can question why he didn’t say it.

I’m also not persuaded by the argument from translating Aramaic to Greek as it seems that this presupposes Mark to be concerned with getting exact wording correct in recounting the sayings of Jesus.  I can’t see that this was a goal of any of the Gospel writers.   

Lastly, just because something makes sense (i.e., is possible) doesn’t mean that it makes the best sense (i.e., is probable).  Anyone who has read Bart Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus is familiar with the anecdote he shares in the introduction of writing a paper on this very passage in an attempt to explain the seeming error.  He received the paper back with a sentence scribed on the cover saying: “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.” (p. 9)  As far as guesswork goes, I think this guess is as good as any and is the one that requires the least amount interpretive ingenuity to make sense of the passage.

I have to agree with Michael’s note at the end that: “even if Jesus had misquoted the passage or gotten one detail of the story backwards, this is no indictment of Him (especially not of His divinity).”  I’d add to this that even if Mark had gotten a detail wrong this is no indictment of the Bible’s overall trustworthiness or authority.  Such a detail is not germane to the overall point that was being made in the passage, namely that Jesus was Lord of the Sabbath.

B”H

Your response: