القشَّة التي دمَّرت الإيمان – مرقس 2 : 26 – مُشكِلة أبياثار


بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

شرح كتاب: تحريف أقوال يسوع, لـ بارت إيرمان

Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed The Bible And Why

العبد الفقير إلى الله أبو المنتصر شاهين الملقب بـ التاعب

المُحاضرة الثالثة: القشَّة التي دمَّرت الإيمان

مرقس 2 / 26 – مُشكِلة أبياثار

للتحميل: (PDF) (المُحاضرة الصوتية)

[A turning point came in my second semester, in a course I was taking with a much revered and pious professor named Cullen Story. The course was on the exegesis of the Gospel of Mark, at the time (and still) my favorite Gospel. For this course we needed to be able to read the Gospel of Mark completely in Greek (I memorized the entire Greek vocabulary of the Gospel the week before the semester began); we were to keep an exegetical notebook on our reflections on the interpretation of key passages; we discussed problems in the interpretation of the text; and we had to write a final term paper on an interpretive crux of our own choosing.] Page 8, 9.

وجاءت نقطة التحول في الفصل الدراسي الثاني، خلال دورة كنت آخذها تحت إشراف الأستاذ الأكثر تقديراً وتديناً وكان اسمه كولين ستوري“. وقد كانت الدورة حول تفسير إنجيل مرقس، إنجيلي المفضل حينها (وما يزال). وقد كان يُشترط فينا من أجل هذه الدورة أن نكون قادرين على قراءة إنجيل مرقس بالكامل باللغة اليونانية (حفظت كلمات الإنجيل اليونانية بكاملها قبل أسبوع من بداية الفصل الدراسي), كان من المتحتم علينا أن نحتفظ بدفتر ملحوظات تفسيرية لانطباعاتنا عن تفسير الفقرات الرئيسية, كنا نناقش المشكلات المتعلقة بتفسيرات النصوص، وكان ينبغي علينا أن نكتب مقالاً في نهاية الفصل الدراسي حول إشكال تفسيري من اختيارنا.

[I chose a passage in Mark 2, where Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees because his disciples had been walking through a grain field, eating the grain on the Sabbath. Jesus wants to show the Pharisees that “Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath” and so reminds them of what the great King David had done when he and his men were hungry, how they went into the Temple “when Abiathar was the high priest” and ate the show bread, which was only for the priests to eat.] Page 9.

وقد اخترت الفقرة في مرقس 2، حيث يتصدى الفريسيون ليسوع لأن تلامذته كانوا يمشون عبر أحد الحقول، وكانوا يأكلون من السنابل في يوم السبت. كان يسوع يريد أن يُبيِّن للفريسيين أن السبت جعل من أجل الإنسان وليس الإنسان من أجل السبتولذلك ذكرهم بما كان الملك داوود العظيم قد فعله عندما أحس هو ورجاله بالجوع، كيف دخلوا إلى الهيكل حينما كان أبياثار هو الكاهن الأعظموأكلوا من خبز التَقْدُمَة، الذي كان مخصص فقط للكهنة.

القصة من إنجيل مرقس:

مرقس 2/25-28فَقَالَ لَهُمْ: «أَمَا قَرَأْتُمْ قَطُّ مَا فَعَلَهُ دَاوُدُ حِينَ احْتَاجَ وَجَاعَ هُوَ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ 26كَيْفَ دَخَلَ بَيْتَ اللَّهِ فِي أَيَّامِ أَبِيَاثَارَ رَئِيسِ الْكَهَنَةِوَأَكَلَ خُبْزَ التَّقْدِمَةِ الَّذِي لاَ يَحِلُّ أَكْلُهُ إلاَّ لِلْكَهَنَةِ وَأَعْطَى الَّذِينَ كَانُوا مَعَهُ أَيْضاً؟» 27ثُمَّ قَالَ لَهُمُ: «السَّبْتُ إِنَّمَا جُعِلَ لأَجْلِ الإِنْسَانِ لاَ الإِنْسَانُ لأَجْلِ السَّبْتِ. 28إِذاً ابْنُ الإِنْسَانِ هُوَ رَبُّ السَّبْتِ أَيْضاً».

[One of the well-known problems of the passage is that when one looks at the Old Testament passage that Jesus is citing (1 Sam. 21:16), it turns out that David did this not when Abiathar was the high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was. In other words, this is one of those passages that have been pointed to in order to show that the Bible is not inerrant at all but contains mistakes.] Page 9.

إحدى الإشكاليات المشهورة في الفقرة هي عندما ينظر الإنسان إلى فقرة العهد القديم التي استشهد بها يسوع (صمويل أول 21 : 6 )، يتضح أن داوود فعل ذلك ليس عندما كان أبياثار هو الكاهن الأعظم، ولكن عندما كان أخيمالك والد أبياثار هو، في الواقع، الكاهن. بطريقة أخرى، هذه الفقرة هي واحدة من تلك الفقرات التي يُشار إليها لبيان أن الكتاب المقدس ليس معصومًا من الخطأ على الإطلاق بل يحوي أخطاءً.

القصة من سفر صموئيل الأول:

1 صموئيل 21/1-6 فَجَاءَ دَاوُدُ إِلَى نُوبٍ إِلَى أَخِيمَالِكَ الْكَاهِنِ. فَاضْطَرَبَ أَخِيمَالِكُ عِنْدَ لِقَاءِ دَاوُدَ وَقَالَ لَهُ: «لِمَاذَا أَنْتَ وَحْدَكَ وَلَيْسَ مَعَكَ أَحَدٌ؟» 2فَقَالَ دَاوُدُ لأَخِيمَالِكَ الْكَاهِنِ: «إِنَّ الْمَلِكَ أَمَرَنِي بِشَيْءٍ وَقَالَ لِي: لاَ يَعْلَمْ أَحَدٌ شَيْئاً مِنَ الأَمْرِ الَّذِي أَرْسَلْتُكَ فِيهِ وَأَمَرْتُكَ بِهِ. وَأَمَّا الْغِلْمَانُ فَقَدْ عَيَّنْتُ لَهُمُ الْمَوْضِعَ الْفُلاَنِيَّ وَالْفُلاَنِيَّ. 3وَالآنَ فَمَاذَا يُوجَدُ تَحْتَ يَدِكَ؟ أَعْطِ خَمْسَ خُبْزَاتٍ فِي يَدِي أَوِ الْمَوْجُودَ». 4فَأَجَابَ الْكَاهِنُ دَاوُدَ: «لاَ يُوجَدُ خُبْزٌ مُحَلَّلٌ تَحْتَ يَدِي, وَلَكِنْ يُوجَدُ خُبْزٌ مُقَدَّسٌ إِذَا كَانَ الْغِلْمَانُ قَدْ حَفِظُوا أَنْفُسَهُمْ لاَ سِيَّمَا مِنَ النِّسَاءِ». 5فَأَجَابَ دَاوُدُ الْكَاهِنَ: «إِنَّ النِّسَاءَ قَدْ مُنِعَتْ عَنَّا مُنْذُ أَمْسِ وَمَا قَبْلَهُ عِنْدَ خُرُوجِي وَأَمْتِعَةُ الْغِلْمَانِ مُقَدَّسَةٌ. وَهُوَ عَلَى نَوْعٍ مُحَلَّلٌ, وَالْيَوْمَ أَيْضاً يَتَقَدَّسُ بِالآنِيَةِ». 6فَأَعْطَاهُ الْكَاهِنُ الْمُقَدَّسَ, لأَنَّهُ لَمْ يَكُنْ هُنَاكَ خُبْزٌ إِلَّا خُبْزَ الْوُجُوهِ الْمَرْفُوعَ مِنْ أَمَامِ الرَّبِّ لِيُوضَعَ خُبْزٌ سُخْنٌ فِي يَوْمِ أَخْذِهِ.

[In my paper for Professor Story, I developed a long and complicated argument to the effect that even though Mark indicates this happened “when Abiathar was the high priest,” it doesn’t really mean that Abiathar was the high priest, but that the event took place in the part of the scriptural text that has Abiathar as one of the main characters. My argument was based on the meaning of the Greek words involved and was a bit convoluted.] Page 9.

في ورقتي التي قدمتها إلى الأستاذ ستوري، طورت فكرة جَدَلِيَّة طويلة ومُعقَّدة مفادها أنه حتى لو كان مرقس يشير إلى حدوث ذلك حينما كان أبياثار هو الكاهن الأعظم“, فإن هذا لا يعني في الحقيقة أن أبياثار كان هو الكاهن الأعظم، ولكن يعني أن هذا الحدث وقع في هذا الجزء من النص الكتابي الذي يعتبر أبياثار واحدًا من الشخصيات الرئيسية. كانت فكرتي تتمركز حول أن معنى الكلمات اليونانية المشار إليها هو معنى مُعقَّد إلى حد ما.

[I was pretty sure Professor Story would appreciate the argument, since I knew him as a good Christian scholar who obviously (like me) would never think there could be anything like a genuine error in the Bible. But at the end of my paper he made a simple one line comment that for some reason went straight through me. He wrote: “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.”] Page 9.

كنت على يقين لا يتزعزع أن الأستاذ ستوريسيقدر هذه الرؤية الجدلية، حيث إنني أعلم أنه عالم مسيحي صالح وهو بوضوح (مثلي) لا يمكن أن يفكر مطلقًا في أنه يوجد شيء ما مثل خطأ حقيقي في الكتاب المقدس. لكنه كتب تعليقًا بسيطًا من سطر واحدٍ في نهاية بحثي أثر فيّ لأسباب عدة. كتب يقول: “ربما مرقس فقط وقع في خطأ.”

[I started thinking about it, considering all the work I had put into the paper, realizing that I had had to do some pretty fancy exegetical footwork to get around the problem, and that my solution was in fact a bit of a stretch. I finally concluded, “Hmm … maybe Mark did make a mistake.”] Page 9.

بدأت أفكر في هذا التعليق، وفي كل العمل الذي قدمته في البحث، وفهمت أنني كان ينبغي أن أقوم ببعض المناورات التفسيرية الوهمية للالتفاف حول المشكلة، وأن الحلَّ الذي اقترحته في الحقيقة كان ممطوطًا إلى حدٍ ما. في النهاية وصلت لنتيجة: “ممممربما مرقس بالفعل قد ارتكب خطئًا.”

[Once I made that admission, the floodgates opened. For if there could be one little, picayune mistake in Mark 2, maybe there could be mistakes in other places as well.] Page 9.

وما أن كتبت هذا الاعتراف، حتى انفتحت السدود. لأنه لو كان هناك خطأ واحد صغير وتافه في مرقس 2، فربما يوجد أخطاء في أماكن أخرى أيضًا.

الاستفاضة في مُناقشة مشكلة أبياثار

الدكتور حُسام أبو البُخاريّ:

http://www.hurras.org/vb/showthread.php?t=14806

الـمُحاضرة الصوتية للدكتور حُسام أبو البُخاريّ:

http://muslimchristiandialogue.com/audio/bro/b-lec/1052-dr-anti-ibithar

المُشكلة تتلخص في نقطتين رئيسيَّتين:

· النص في مرقس يقول: “هُوَ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ“, وفي العهد القديم نجد: “لِمَاذَا أَنْتَ وَحْدَكَ وَلَيْسَ مَعَكَ أَحَدٌ“.

· النص في مرقس يقول: “فِي أَيَّامِأَبِيَاثَارَ رَئِيسِ الْكَهَنَةِ“, وفي العهد القديم نجد أنه أَخِيمَالِكُوليس أبياثار.

النقطة الأولى ليس لها أي رد, أو بمعنى أصح, ليست هي المشكلة الرئيسية الكبيرة.

ولكن هاتين المشكلتين مستخدمتان في:

1. نفي وحي وعصمة الكتاب المقدس, وأن الكتاب يحتوي فعلاً على أخطاء.

2. نفي عصمة الكتاب المقدس من ناحية حفظ النص, فقد قام النُّساخ بتحريف النص.

بالإضافة إلى الطعن في: يسوع أو مرقس أو بطرس أو الثلاثة معاً !

القصة نفسها من الأناجيل الأخرى:

متى 12/3-5فَقَالَ لَهُمْ: «أَمَا قَرَأْتُمْ مَا فَعَلَهُ دَاوُدُ حِينَ جَاعَ هُوَ وَالَّذِينَ مَعَهُ 4كَيْفَ دَخَلَ بَيْتَ اللَّهِ وَأَكَلَ خُبْزَ التَّقْدِمَةِ الَّذِي لَمْ يَحِلَّ أَكْلُهُ لَهُ وَلاَ لِلَّذِينَ مَعَهُ بَلْ لِلْكَهَنَةِ فَقَطْ؟ 5أَوَ مَا قَرَأْتُمْ فِي التَّوْرَاةِ أَنَّ الْكَهَنَةَ فِي السَّبْتِ فِي الْهَيْكَلِ يُدَنِّسُونَ السَّبْتَ وَهُمْ أَبْرِيَاءُ؟

لوقا 6/3-5فَأَجَابَ يَسُوعُ: «أَمَا قَرَأْتُمْ وَلاَ هَذَا الَّذِي فَعَلَهُ دَاوُدُ حِينَ جَاعَ هُوَوَالَّذِينَ كَانُوا مَعَهُ 4كَيْفَ دَخَلَ بَيْتَ اللهِ وَأَخَذَ خُبْزَ التَّقْدِمَةِ وَأَكَلَ وَأَعْطَى الَّذِينَ مَعَهُ أَيْضاً الَّذِي لاَ يَحِلُّ أَكْلُهُ إِلاَّ لِلْكَهَنَةِ فَقَطْ؟» 5وَقَالَ لَهُمْ: «إِنَّ ابْنَ الإِنْسَانِ هُوَ رَبُّ السَّبْتِ أَيْضاً».

مخطوطات إنجيل مرقس والأشكال المُختلفة للنص[[1]]:

· ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρἀρχιερέως: في عهد أبياثار رئيس الكهنة

o هذا الشكل للنص يوضِّح أن أبياثار وقتها كان رئيس الكهنة فعلاً.

o 01, B, G, K, Y, 118, 157, 892, 1342, 1424, Maj, Lat (aur, c, f, l, q, vg)

· ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρτοῦἀρχιερέως: في عهد أبياثار الكاهن الأعظم

o هذا الشكل للنص يوضِّح أن أبياثار كان موجوداً وكان يُلقَّب بـ رئيس الكهنة أو الكاهن الأعظم.

o A, C, Q, P, S, F, 064, f1, f13, 22, 28, 33, 565, 579, 700, 1071, 1241, al250, Co, Trgmg

· ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρτοῦιερέως: في عهد أبياثار الكاهن

o هذا الشكل للنص يحذف الجزء الخاص بـ رئيس“, ويجعله كاهناً فقط.

o D

· omit: كيف دخل بيت الله وأكل خبز التقدمة

o هذا الشكل للنص يحذف الجزء الذي حوله الإشكالية.

o D, W, pc5, it(a, b, d, e, ff2, i, r1, t), Sy-S, pc = 855, 1285, 1546*, 1668*, 2774

المخطوطات التي حذفت عبارة في أيام أبياثار رئيس الكهنة[[2]]:ἐπὶἈβιαθὰρἀρχιερέως

· D مخطوطة بيزا من القرن الخامس.

· W مخطوطة واشنجطون من القرن الخامس.

· it أغلبية مخطوطات الترجمة اللاتينية القديمة.

· sys مخطوطة الترجمة السريانية السينائية من القرن الرابع.

أقوال العلماء بخصوص مشكلة أبياثار

اعتراف صريح بالمشكلة وعدم مُناقشة حلول:

ر. ألان كول: التفسير الحديث للكتاب المقدس[إننا هُنا أمام مُشكلة مُحيِّرة, ذلك أن أبياثار لم يُصبح كاهناً (إذ يبدو أن لقب رئيس الكهنة أو عظيم الكهنة high priest لم يكن مُستخدماً في عهده) إلا بعد أن قتل شاول أبيمالك والد أبياثار بسبب العمل الذي قام به من أجل داود. إن العديد من المخطوطات تحذف هذه الجُملة أو جزءاً منها, ومن المؤكد أنها فعلت هذا الأمر تفادياً لهذه المُشكلة. وقد يكون في استطاعتنا قطع العقدة النموذجية كما فعل جيروم في شجاعة أن اهتمامنا ليس بالأسماء وما إلى ذلك (قارن مرقس 1/2 حيث ورد الاقتباس من إشعياء النبي في ترجمة RV والمتضمن بالفعل جزءاً من نبوءة  ملاخي), وإلا فعلينا أن نقول إن الكلمة اليونانية epi يجب ترجمتها كالتالي: “في الفقرة التي تتناول…” قارن (مرقس 12/26 – انظر ترجمة RV).][[3]]

Wieland Willkerl: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels[It was Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, who was the high priest when David ate the bread. To get this right the easiest way would be an omission. Others changed it to “at the time of Abiathar, the high priest”, because Abiathar was high priest later on. It is interesting that nobody inserted the correct name here.][[4]]

Bruce Metzger: A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament[According to 1 Sm 21 it was Ahimelech, not Abiathar, who was high priest when David ate the bread of the Presence. In order to avoid the historical difficulty, D W al omit ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, thereby conforming the text to Mt 12.4 and Lk 6.4. Other witnesses, reluctant to go so far as to delete the phrase, inserted τοῦ before ἀρχιερέως (or ἱερέως) in order to permit the interpretation that the event happened in the time of (but not necessarily during the high-priesthood of) Abiathar (who, was afterward) the high priest.][[5]]

Bruce Terry: A Student’s Guide to New Testament Textual Variants[The problem here revolves around the fact that Abiathar was not high priest at the time that David took the bread. His father, Ahimelech, was then high priest, and it was only later that Abiathar became high priest. The Greek idiom most naturally means “during the time that Abiathar was high priest.” For this reason some copyists omitted the phrase. However, the phrase may have two other meanings: First, it may be that Jesus just mentions Abiathar with the highest title that he wore, thus meaning “in the time of Abiathar, who became high priest.” The addition of “the” before “high priest” which some manuscripts have would make this meaning more possible in Greek. Second, it is also possible to translate the idiom “in [the passage about] Abiathar [the] high priest,” as is found in Mark 12:26: “in [the passage about] the bush.”][[6]]

Jay P. Green: Textual And Translation Notes On The Gospels – Mark 2:26. [The uncertainty, and thus untrustworthiness, of critical opinion is shown by their disagreements. The eclectic, pieced together Greek Texts have no solid foundation; they are built on the sand of personal, subjective opinions, etc. For example, after Tischendorf discovered the adulterated manuscript Sinaiticus (Aleph) in a wastebasket, he made thousands of changes in his Greek. In this verse Nestle bracketed the first word how, but Nestle26/UBS3 does not. A much more serious change was made in the Revised Version, saying, when Abiathar was High Priest. This is an error because David did not receive the loaves of the presentation from Abiathar when he was High Priest. And this untrue statement is put into the mouth of the Lord Jesus Himself. For what He said was this, that in the days of Abiathar, who later became High Priest, David came to him. What the NRSV and REB says is that David came when Abiathar was High Priest, and that is patently untrue. But, Alas! The new versionists can treat the Scriptures like a nose of wax, twisting them, making them contradict themselves, putting untrue words in the mouths of God’s spokesmen, and even into the mouth of the Lord Jesus. And why? It is all because they have more adoration for Aleph and B than they do for the integrity and truthfulness of God’s Word! For only Aleph and B are at the bottom of this damaging change; all other evidence clearly supports the Received Text.]

كلام جيروم المدعو قديساً:

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series[The same Mark brings before us the Saviour thus addressing the Pharisees: “Have ye never read what David did when he had need and was an hungred, he and they that were with him, how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shew-bread which is not lawful to eat but for the priests?”Now let us turn to the books of Samuel, or, as they are commonly called, of Kings, and we shall find there that the highpriest’s name was not Abiathar but Ahimelech, the same that was afterwards put to death with the rest of the priests by Doeg at the command of Saul.][[7]]

The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series[From all these passages it is clear that the apostles and evangelists in translating the old testament scriptures have sought to give the meaning rather than the words, and that they have not greatly cared to preserve forms or constructions, so long as they could make clear the subject to the understanding.][[8]]

اعتراف صريح بالمشكلة مع عرض بعض حلول:

John Wesley: John Wesley’s Explanatory Notes on the Whole Bible – Mar 2:26. [In the days of Abiathar the high priest – Abimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest then; Abiathar himself not till sometime after. This phrase therefore only means, In the time of Abiathar, who was afterward the high priest.]

Adam Clarke: Adam Clarke’s Commentary on the Bible – Mar 2:26. [The days of Abiathar the high priest – It appears from 1Sa_21:1, which is the place referred to here, that Ahimelech was then high priest at Nob: and from 1Sa_22:20; 1Sa_23:6, and 1Ch_18:16, it appears that Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech.]

Dr. John Gill: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible – Mar 2:26. [In the days or Abiathar the high priest: and yet from the history it is clear, that it was in the days of Ahimelech the high priest, the father of Abiathar; wherefore the Jew charges Mark with an error, and Matthew and Luke too: whereas the two last make no mention of the name of any high priest; and it might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, “under Abimelech the high priest”; and in an ancient copy of Beza’s, the whole clause is omitted; though it must be owned, that so it is read in other Greek copies, and in the ancient versions, the Vulgate Latin, Syriac, Arabic, and others: wherefore let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle επι may be so rendered, about, or “before Abiathar was high priest”, as it is in Mat_1:11. Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews themselves give, “the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, הרי כהן גדול אמור, “lo! he is called an high priest”.]

متى المسكين: الإنجيل بحسب القديس مرقس  [أمَّا مؤاخذة العلماء في أن المسيح قال: «في أيام أبياثار رئيس الكهنة» وأن هذه القصة كانت في أيام أخيمالك رئيس الكهنة وليس أبياثار، فيرد العلماء أن في إنجيل ق. متى (12: 1-8) وفي إنجيل ق. لوقا (6: 1-5) أن الإشارة إلى أبياثار رئيس الكهنة غير موجودة أصلاً، كما أنها غائبة في المخطوطات الأُولى لإنجيل ق. مرقس. كما يقول بعض العلماء إن ق. مرقس يشير بذلك إلى الدَرَج الخاص بصموئيل النبي الـمُعَنون بأبياثار.][[9]]

Biblical Studies Press. (2006; 2006). The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press. Tn Mk 2:26. [A decision about the proper translation of this Greek phrase (ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, ejpi Abiathar ajrchiereōs) is very difficult for a number of reasons. The most natural translation of the phrase is “when Abiathar was high priest,” but this is problematic because Abiathar was not the high priest when David entered the temple and ate the sacred bread; Ahimelech is the priest mentioned in 1 Sam 21:1–7. Three main solutions have been suggested to resolve this difficulty. (1) There are alternate readings in various manuscripts, but these are not likely to be original: D W {271} it sys and a few others omit ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, no doubt in conformity to the parallels in Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4; {A C Θ Π Σ Φ 074 f13 and many others} add τοῦ before ἀρχιερέως, giving the meaning “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,” suggesting a more general time frame. Neither reading has significant external support and both most likely are motivated by the difficulty of the original reading. (2) Many scholars have hypothesized that one of the three individuals who would have been involved in the transmission of the statement (Jesus who uttered it originally, Mark who wrote it down in the Gospel, or Peter who served as Mark’s source) was either wrong about Abiathar or intentionally loose with the biblical data in order to make a point. (3) It is possible that what is currently understood to be the most natural reading of the text is in fact not correct. (a) There are very few biblical parallels to this grammatical construction (ἐπί + genitive proper noun, followed by an anarthrous common noun), so it is possible that an extensive search for this construction in nonbiblical literature would prove that the meaning does involve a wide time frame. If this is so, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” would be a viable option. (b) It is also possible that this phrasing serves as a loose way to cite a scripture passage. There is a parallel to this construction in Mark 12:26: “Have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush?” Here the final phrase is simply ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου (ejpi tou batou), but the obvious function of the phrase is to point to a specific passage within the larger section of scripture. Deciding upon a translation here is difficult. The translation above has followed the current consensus on the most natural and probable meaning of the phrase ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως: “when Abiathar was high priest.” It should be recognized, however, that this translation is tentative because the current state of knowledge about the meaning of this grammatical construction is incomplete, and any decision about the meaning of this text is open to future revision.]

Philip W Comfort: NT Text And Translation Commentary – Page 102. [All three editions (TR WH NU) indicate that David entered into the house of God “during [the time] of Abiathar, high priest” (ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως). This is the reading of all manuscripts (some of which add the definite article τοῦ before ἀρχιερέως) except D W it syrs. The reading of the three editions has excellent support, including the earliest evidence coming from p88. But once this reading is accepted, there is an obvious problem: Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father, was the high priest when David entered into the house of God and took the showbread (see 1 Sam 21:1-8); Abiathar does not come on the scene until 1 Sam 22:20, and even then he is not the high priest. Both Matthew (12:3) and Luke (6:3) deleted this statement, avoiding the mistake – as did the scribes of D and W, most Old Latin translators (including Jerome, Epist. 57.9), and syrs here in Mark. Nonetheless, many ancient scribes, remaining faithful to their exemplars and ultimately to the original text, retained the reading ‘Abiathar.” The addition of the article could perhaps allow for the translation, “in the time of Abiathar, the one who [later] became high priest.” Another possibility is that it means “in the account of Abiathar the high priest” (as is done in Mark 12:26—”in the account of the bush”) or “in the passage dealing with Abiathar the high priest” (Wessel 1984,638). The scribes who inserted the article may have had such adjustments in mind or were simply adding an article before the title “high priest.” In this light, it appears that the interpretations pertaining to the definite article are modern attempts to resolve a difficult problem. Suffice it to say, the OT itself seems to confuse Ahimelech and Abiathar. In 1 Sam 22:20, Abiathar is presented as the son of Ahimilech; whereas 2 Sam 8:17 and 1 Chr 24:6 refer to Ahimelech as the son of Abiathar and priest under David (Hurtadol989,54).]

Gould, E. P. (1922). A critical and exegetical commentary on the Gospel according to St. Mark (Page 49). New York: C. Scribner’s sons. [In the account of this in 1 Saml. 21:1, sqq., Abimelech was high-priest, and Abiathar, his son, does not become high-priest until the reign of David. See ch. 22:21. To be sure, other passages in the O.T. make the same confusion of names, making Abimelech, the son of Abiathar, high-priest in David’s time. But this does not explain our difficulty; it only shows that there is the same difficulty in the O.T. account. Nor does it relieve it to suppose that this means simply that the event took place during the lifetime of Abiathar, not during the high-priesthood. For the transaction took place between David and the high-priest; and the object of introducing the name would be to show in whose high-priesthood it took place, not simply in whose lifetime. (…) If such disagreement were uncommon, it would be worth while to try somewhat anxiously to remove this difficulty; but, as a matter of fact, discrepancies of this unimportant kind are not at all uncommon in the Scriptures.]

Brooks, J. A. (2001, c1991). Vol. 23: Mark, The New American Commentary (Page 66). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers. [A difficult problem is in v. 26. According to 1 Sam 21:1–6, Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was high priest at the time. The most frequent explanation is that Mark’s memory slipped. Such an explanation is impossible for those who embrace a concept of scriptural inerrancy as a result of their view of divine inspiration. The difficulty was felt even by ancient copyists, some of whom omitted “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,”11some of whom inserted an article in order to imply that Abiathar was not necessarily high priest at the time and some of whom substituted “priest” for “high priest.” None of these variants has any claim to originality, nor do they solve the problem. The statement was perhaps a scribal gloss that later was accidentally taken into the text.]

France, R. T. (2002). The Gospel of Mark: A commentary on the Greek text (Page 146). Grand Rapids, Mich.;  Carlisle: W.B. Eerdmans; Paternoster Press. [The name of the priest, however, does not correspond; 1 Sa. 21:1–9 names him as Ahimelech, who was the father of the Ἀβιαθάρ who features prominently in David’s subsequent story. There was apparently some confusion over these names, since Abiathar generally appears as David’s priest along with Zadok, and yet the lists in 2 Sa. 8:17; 1 Ch. 24:6 give ‘Ahimelech son of Abiathar’ as priest along with Zadok. Mark seems to share that confusion; Abiathar was presumably there at the time (cf. 1 Sa. 22:20 for his subsequent escape from Nob), but he was not yet ἀρχιερεύς.]

Edwards, J. R. (2002). The Gospel according to Mark. The Pillar New Testament commentary (Page 94). Grand Rapids, Mich; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos. [Mention of Abiathar is problematic in the account because the priest at Nob from whom David procured the loaves was Ahimelech (1 Sam 21:1), not Abiathar his son (1 Sam 22:20), who succeeded to the high priesthood during David’s reign. The NIV rendering “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,” although not technically as accurate as the NRSV’s “when Abiathar was high priest,” nevertheless seems better to capture Mark’s intention, for the event under consideration appears to have been associated in popular memory with the high priesthood of Abiathar.]

Ryle, J. C. (1993). Mark. The Crossway classic commentaries (Page 27). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books. [There is some difficulty in this passage in the mention of Abiathar as “the high priest(verse 26). In the book of Samuel it appears that Abimelech was the high priest when the incident referred to took place (1 Samuel 21:6).]

Ryle, J. C. (1993). Mark. The Crossway classic commentaries (Page 28). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books. [Some of these solutions of the difficulty are evidently more probable than others. But any one of them is far more reasonable and deserving of belief than to suppose, as some have asserted, that St. Mark made a blunder! Such a theory destroys the whole principle of the inspiration of Scripture. Transcribers of the Bible have possibly made occasional mistakes. The original writers were inspired in the writing of every word, and therefore could not err.]

Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. X. Saint Chrysostom: Homilies of the Gospel of Saint Matthew. (Page 255). [But Mark saith, “In the days of Abiathar the High Priest:” not stating what was contrary to the history, but implying that he had two names; and adds that “he gave unto him,”indicating that herein also David had much to say for himself, since even the very priest suffered him; and not only suffered, but even ministered unto him.]

الترجمات المُختلفة للمقطع في إنجيل مرقس:

المعنى الأول:أبياثار وقتها كان رئيس الكهنة

· (JAB) على عهد عظيم الكهنة أبياتار

· (PANTV) في عهد أبياتار رئيس الكهنة

· (AMP) when Abiathar was the high priest

· (ASV) when Abiathar was high priest

· (BBE) when Abiathar was high priest

· (EMTV) at the time Abiathar was high priest

· (GNB) This happened when Abiathar was the High Priest

· (GW) when Abiathar was chief priest

· (ISV) when Abiathar was high priest

· (Murdock) when Abiathar was high priest

· (RV) when Abiathar was high priest

· (WNT) in the High-priesthood of Abiathar

المعنى الثاني:أبياثار كان موجوداً وقتها وليس ضرورياً أن يكون وقتها رئيس الكهنة

· (MSG) with the Chief Priest Abiathar right there watching

· (NWT) in the account about A·bi’a·thar the chief priest

· (Darby) in the section of Abiathar the high priest

المعنى الثالث: المعنى ليس واضحاً تماماً, هل كان أبياثار رئيس الكهنة وقتها, أم كان موجوداً فقط ؟

· (ALAB) في زمان أبيأثار رئيس الكهنة

· (SVD) في أيام أبياثار رئيس الكهنة

· (GNA) في أيام أبـياتار رئيس الكهنة

· (ASB) في أيام أبيأثر الحبر الأعلى

· (ALT) at the time of Abiathar the high priest

· (Bishops) [in the dayes] of Abiathar the hye prieste

· (CEV) It was during the time of Abiathar the high priest

· (DRP Gospels) In the days of Abiathar the high priest

· (DRB) under Abiathar the high priest

· (ESV) in the time of Abiathar the high priest

· (Geneva) in the daies of Abiathar the hie Priest

· (KJV) in the days of Abiathar the high priest

· (LITV) in the days of Abiathar the high priest

· (Webster) in the days of Abiathar the high priest

عندما يُستخدم حرف الجر ἐπὶمع المُضاف إليه:

Luk 3:2فِي أَيَّامِ رَئِيسِ الْكَهَنَةِ حَنَّانَ وَقَيَافَاكَانَتْ كَلِمَةُ اللهِ عَلَى يُوحَنَّا بْنِ زَكَرِيَّا فِي الْبَرِّيَّةِ

Luk 3:2ἐπὶ ἀρχιερέως῎Αννακαὶ Καιϊάφα, ἐγένετο ῥῆμα Θεοῦ ἐπὶ ᾿Ιωάννην τὸν Ζαχαρίου υἱὸν ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ.

Luk 4:27وَبُرْصٌ كَثِيرُونَ كَانُوا فِي إِسْرَائِيلَ فِي زَمَانِ أَلِيشَعَ النَّبِيِّ وَلَمْ يُطَهَّرْ وَاحِدٌ مِنْهُمْ إِلاَّ نُعْمَانُ السُّرْيَانِيُّ».

Luk 4:27 καὶ πολλοὶ λεπροὶ ἦσαν ἐπὶ ᾿Ελισαίουτοῦπροφήτουἐν τῷ ᾿Ισραὴλ, καὶ οὐδεὶς αὐτῶν ἐκαθαρίσθη εἰ μὴ Νεεμὰν ὁ Σύρος.

راجع الآتي:

· صموئيل كامل وموريس تاوضروس: اللغة اليونانية للعهد الجديد, الطبعة الثالثة, دير القديسة دميانة صـ76. تحت عُنوان: استعمالات ἐπὶ مع الـمُضاف إليه: (ب) للتعبير عن الزمان.

· رهبان دير أنبا مقار: قاموس يوناني عربي لكلمات العهد الجديد والكتابات المسيحية الأولى, دير أنبا مقار صـ52. استعمالات ἐπὶ مع الـمُضاف إليه: على, أمام, عن, فوق, عند, بالقرب من.

· رهبان دير أنبا مقار: قواعد اللغة اليونانية للعهد الجديد, دير أنبا مقار صـ195. استعمالات ἐπὶ مع الـمُضاف إليه: (2) بمعنى: “في وقتأو في عصرأو في عهدأو في أيام“. (3) بمعنى: “في حضورأو أمام“.

· القمص بولا الأنبا بيشوي: أصول اللغة اليونانية للعهد الجديد, دير مار مينا الطبعة الثانية صـ438. حرف الجر ἐπὶ, الاستعمال الزمني.

· ستان سكريسلت: أصول اللغة اليونانية للعهد الجديد, دار الكتاب المقدس صـ23. حروف الجر التي تأخذ ثلاث حالات: ἐπὶ + genitive case.

الحمد لله الذي بنعمته تتم الصالحات


[1] Wieland Willkerl: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, Vol. 2, Mark, Bremen, online published 8th edition 2011 – Mk 2:26.

[2] Nestle, E., Nestle, E., Aland, K., Aland, B., & Universität Münster. Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung. (1993, c1979). Novum Testamentum Graece. At head of title: Nestle-Aland. (27. Aufl., rev.) (Page 95). Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelstiftung.

[3]ر. ألان كول: التفسير الحديث للكتاب المقدس, العهد الجديد, إنجيل مرقس, دار الثقافة صـ68, الهامش رقم 2.

[4] Wieland Willkerl: A Textual Commentary on the Greek Gospels, Vol. 2, Mark, Bremen, online published 8th edition 2011 – Mk 2:26.

[5] Metzger, B. M., & United Bible Societies. (1994). A textual commentary on the Greek New Testament, second edition a companion volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (4th rev. ed.) (Page 68). London;  New York: United Bible Societies.

[6] Bruce Terry: A Student’s Guide to New Testament Textual Variants, The Gospel According to Mark – Mark 2:26.

[7] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. VI. Jerome: Letters and Select Works. (Page 116).

[8] Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Second Series Vol. VI. Jerome: Letters and Select Works. (Page 117).

[9]متى المسكين: الإنجيل بحسب القديس مرقس, دراسة وتفسير وشرح, دير القديس أنبا مقار صـ183, الهامش رقم 9.

تعليقات
  1. السلام عليكم و رحمة الله تعالى و بركاته :

    اللهم صلي و سلم و بارك على سيدنا و حبيبنا قرة قلوبنا ” محمد ” سيد الأولين و الاخرين أجمعين.

    أما بعــد :

    أستاذنا الكريم ” أبو المنتصر شاهين ” لقد أنصت اليوم لمحاضرتك القيمة التي كانت عن الدكتور بارت ايرمان و كسر حاجز الإيمان الاعمى بعد دراسته للنص المرقسي و تعليق أستاذه عليه “” ربما اخطا مرقس “.
    أحب أولا أن أنوه على مجهودك الطيب في البحث و التقصي لكي تحضر محاظرتك هذه. أسأل الله العلي العظيم أن يجعل عملك هذا في ميزان حسناتك. أنا لا يحرمنا الأجر أيضا.
    ثانيا : لقد خرجت بمعلومات قيمة جديدة أشكرك عليها مرة أخرى.
    ثالثا : أنا حضرت النية ان شاء الله تعالى و قدر أن أقوم بما طلبته منا آخر المحاظرة. لكن لانشغالي ببحث آخر (( قبل أن يكون ابراهيم )) و بسبب ظروف أخرى (( امتحانات )) سوف اجل هذا العمل إلى وقت لاحق لكن بعون الله و بدعواتك لي . ان شاء الله اقوم بالمهمة.
    ثالثا و ختامه مسك ..لا تحرمنا استذنا الكريم من كتاباتك و بحوثك و علم. ولي سؤال : شيخنا و استاذنا و اخونا <> أرى أنه غاب فأطال الغيبة. لعل المانع الخير. أرجوا ان استطعت الاتصال به ان تبلغه سلامي و تحياتي له أنا التلميذ البسيط (( الله عالي غير متعالــــي :) ))
    آسف على الإطالة و كثرة الكلام… والسلام عليكم و رحمة الله تعالى و بركاته.

  2. challengerforever قال:

    ماشاء الله تبارك الله أخي

    أسأل الله أن يجعلها في ميزان حسناتك خالصة لوجه الله تعالى

    وفقكم الله لما يحبه ويرضاه ونفع بعلمكم

أضف تعليقاً

إملأ الحقول أدناه بالمعلومات المناسبة أو إضغط على إحدى الأيقونات لتسجيل الدخول:

WordPress.com Logo

أنت تعلق بإستخدام حساب WordPress.com. تسجيل خروج   / تغيير )

صورة تويتر

أنت تعلق بإستخدام حساب Twitter. تسجيل خروج   / تغيير )

Facebook photo

أنت تعلق بإستخدام حساب Facebook. تسجيل خروج   / تغيير )

Google+ photo

أنت تعلق بإستخدام حساب Google+. تسجيل خروج   / تغيير )

Connecting to %s