withallyourmind.net

This is the final post in a series examining the so-called contradiction between Mark 2 and 1 Samuel 21 concerning who was high priest when David entered the temple and ate the holy bread. In my last post, I proposed a straightforward, reasonable reconciliation of the two passages.

Dan Wallace, whose excellent work I’ve referred to throughout this series, reaches the same conclusion in his examination of Mark 2. He makes the case that the reading, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” is the preferred reading. Regarding Mark’s temporal use of the preposition, he states he “almost surely does” employ it in this way in this passage. Although, we find few other examples in Mark of this usage, we find it in several other places in the New Testament. I’ve already mentioned Archer’s comparison of this passage with Acts 11:28 and Hebrews 1:2. Wallace argues for its frequent use elsewhere in the New Testament. For example, Luke 4:27 contains the phrase “in the time of Elisha”, and Luke 3:2, “in the time of the high priest, Annas and Caiaphas.” The last reference seems to be a more powerful argument that “in the time of” is preferred over “when” since there is no evidence that these two men were functioning as high priests simultaneously.

I fear Bart Ehrman too rashly accepted the advice a professor that, “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.” Maybe, he did. But unless one approaches the text with a presumption of guilt rather than innocence, there is no good reason to join Ehrman in opening the floodgates of doubt, propelling him forward to the…

… radical shift from reading the Bible as an inerrant blueprint for our faith, life, and future to seeing it as a very human book, with very human points of view, many of which differ from one another and none of which provides the inerrant guide to how we should live.

In conclusion, the problem of Abiathar and Ahimelech in Mark 2 is easily resolved with a highly plausible explanation. It certainly provides no threat to the doctrine of inerrancy. The only reason to argue that this passage contains an error is to limit one’s options by frontloading one’s presuppositions, such as the belief that the Bible is a human book full of errors.