Comments on: Minimising mistakes in the Bible (or not)

By: Alan

Alan — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 14:09:05 +0000

I take a more “Nike commercial” approach……..just read it

By: J. K. Gayle

J. K. Gayle — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 02:11:35 +0000

What’s wrong with a minor booboo of the kind we all make from time to time?

I’ve just posted an answer on boobooing, and how right or wrong is may be.

By: J. K. Gayle

J. K. Gayle — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 00:53:55 +0000

Now you will excuse me if I see a mismatch between the theory and the practice in this verse. Am I being unduly cynical if I see this as a deliberate attempt to soften the problem.

Yes, and a resounding No, Doug!! You’re helping us see translators’ mistakes, deliberate or otherwise.

But: Is the “mistake” of Mark 2:26 (seen as such presumably by ESV and HCSB translators) really not a lack of clarity in the Books of I & II Samuel and in I Chronicles?

First:
about “Abiathar (אביתר, Ebyathar, Evyatar, the [divine] father is pre-eminent),” the editors of the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition (under the editing process now of wikipedia editors) say this:

“In 2 Sam. viii. 17 Abiathar, the son of Achimelech should be read, with the Syriac, for Achimelech, the son of Abiathar.”

Second:
the editors of wrestedscriptures.com say this:

“Abiathar and Ahimelech were names of both father and son. . . . Jesus [in Mark 2:26] and the account[s] in Samuel [I Sam. 14:3, 22:20; II Sam. 8:17; & 1 Chron. 18:16; 24:6] refer to Ahimelech (or Abiathar, his other name), [who is] the son of Ahitub. There is, therefore, no inaccuracy. Jesus uses one name, and the Samuel account uses the other name, for the same individual.”

As you rightly observe, some seem skittish about the history records of “Jesus, Mark, or a tradent (Peter?).” And, as you name them, these skittish historians and translators are “Matthew (12:4) and Luke (6:4) [3:2, Acts 11:28] and some MSS [writers]” as well as the “scholars” of the ESV and HCSB.

Jesus and Mark (or Peter) actually know more about and can care less about the un-clarities of scripture!

By: doug

doug — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:57:12 +0000

For those who want them, the links John refers to in the above comment are John’s here and Anthony’s here

By: John Hobbins

John Hobbins — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:44:51 +0000

Thanks, Doug, for a post well done. It prompted me to post along similar lines. Anthony Loke picked up on it, too, so don’t be surprised by the number of hits you get from Malaysia.

By: doug

doug — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:33:41 +0000

Do you have some examples of that? I’d like to look at some, because this isn’t something that has ever struck me.(Of course, some manuscripts show some of that behaviour, and some apparent harmonisation may actually be about textual choices)

By: Andrew

Andrew — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 21:30:14 +0000

I totally agree.

Evangelical bible translations have a bad habit of attempting to hide discrepancies. I think it’s the NIV that goes so far as to translate parallel stories in the gospels so that they are in word-for-word agreement even when the different gospels word them differently.

By: Nick Norelli

Nick Norelli — Tue, 02 Oct 2007 17:42:47 +0000

Just because the atheists are fundamentalists, we don’t have to impale ourselves on the horns of their dilemma.

Well said! I couldn't agree more! I documented my encounter with one such fundie atheist here regarding the flood account being local or global.