WordPress has corrected whatever issue was impeding my posting and now all is bliss.  So back to the topic at hand.

Michael Halcomb has responded at some length to my recent comments concerning his Studies in Mark, Pt. 33 post.  I won’t spend nearly as much time responding for what we will soon see to be an obvious reason.

Michael opens this post saying that I basically misrepresented him and for this I do apologize.  Apparently it was not his intention to show that “liberal literal(ists)” are wrong in their approach to Mark 2:26.  He only wished to challenge their presuppositions with regard to the passage.  Fair enough.  I would however express my opinion that presuppositions are not necessarily what lead interpreters of Mark to believe that there was a simple error made in 2:26. 

But now onto why I don’t need to offer a lenthy response.  My original charge of special pleading is what takes center stage in Michael’s reply and I think that he has (1) misunderstood the original charge, and (2) he concedes that I may be correct.

(1) I originally said:

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.

I believe that Michael misunderstood this charge and somehow related it to me arguing against the Aramaic that he believes underlies the Greek of Mark 2:26.  But I was speaking in regard to his statement that: “Suffice it to say, Abiathar was a “great” or “renown” priest.”  The alternatives to which I referred were “great” or “renown” priest which are supposed to stand in place of “high” priest.  Again, this translation (great or renown priest) would not be suggested for any other occurence of ἀρχιερέως in Mark or the NT as a whole. 

(2) Michael then says:

Nick is wrong, at least in part, that this alternative (that is, turning to Aramaic) would not be suggested anywhere else in Mark or the New Testament. I say “partially” because for this specific term, he may be right. However, when one gets into the nitty gritty of Mark, we see traces of Aramaic all over the place!!!

This specific term (ἀρχιερέως) is the only one I am concerned with.  Whatever other Aramaisms might exist in Mark do not have standing here.  But again, I believe even here he has misunderstood the original charge.  He also said later in the post that:

“Just because this example is unique in the NT is not proof that your argument is right. There are plenty of unique words and meanings in the NT overall and in each work (e.g. hapax). Also, there are occasions where the same words are translated differently.”

My argument is that this is not a unique example and while there may be many hapax legomena in the NT, this isn’t one of them.  Mark uses ἀρχιερέως in the genitive three other times in his Gospel alone.  And while I agree that there are times when the same word is translated differently, I’d ask who does that with regard to ἀρχιερέως in Mark?  I can find no major translation that does this.   

As for the rest of his response I see no real need to address it.  Obviously I reject the charge of straw man argumentation on my part — I don’t believe that I attributed any argument to Michael that he did not himself contend for (other than the concession I made in the beginning). 

In closing I’d just say this… I didn’t imagine that Michael just happened upon his argument or pulled it from thin air.  I’m quite sure that he spent a good ammount of time studying this issue and obviously he is confident in his conclusions.  I simply disagree and find his argument ultimately unpersuasive.  I also find Timothy P. Jones’ argument unpersuasive.  I do however thank Michael for the references to Markan scholars and I will take some time in the future to read some of their works. 

B”H

BTW, I did appreciate the reference to “Nothing but a G Thang” (I’ll leave it to the rap fans to pick it out of his post )

Your response: