withallyourmind.net

This is the third post in a series examining the apparent contradiction found between Mark 2:21 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6.

Now, to return to the problem of Mark 2, which opened the floodgates of doubt for Bart Ehrman. First of all, it is important to note that there is no contradiction present here. Mark 2 and I Samuel 21 do not make contradictory claims. They both make different statements, and there may be an error present, but there is nothing contradictory in the differing accounts (i.e., they do not say that one thing both is and is not in the same sense at the same time). It might be helpful to re-read the preceding passages to see that this is the case. Next, is there a way to harmonize the two passages? Or, should one just admit that there is an error and find some place to place the blame?

Dan Wallace, in a presentation to the Evangelical Theological Society on this problem, lists several contenders for a solution (including the error hypothesis):
1. The text is wrong and needs to be amended.
2. Jesus is wrong (or intentionally midrashic).
3. Mark’s source (Peter?) is wrong (or intentionally midrashic).
4. Mark is wrong (or intentionally midrashic).
5. Our interpretation is wrong and needs to be altered.

Wallace is correct, I think, in asserting that our presuppositions will influence which of these options we choose. For the Christian who believes in inerrancy many of the above will be rejected from the beginning. Wallace argues, however, that it would be unfortunate to allow our presuppositions to keep us from submitting each possibility to solid historical investigation. By doing so, we may gain much knowledge.

The phrase in question is found in Mark 2:26, “Epi Abiathar archiereos,” which is translated in some versions as “when Abiathar was high priest” and in others as “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” What is the probability that option 1 above, that is, the text as we have it is incorrect and should be changed, is the correct option. There are two basic textual alterations to be found in the ancient manuscripts. The first is the omission of the phrase entirely, almost completely a Western reading, according to Wallace. This would be in keeping with the parallel passages in Matthew and Luke, which do not contain the reference to Abiathar at all. The second is the insertion of an article before archiereos which would reinforce the meaning “in the days of Abiathar the high priest”, suggesting a more general time frame. Wallace concludes that Mark 2:26 with the phrase, “Epi Abiathar archiereos” is the favored reading. He reasons that the Western reading which omitted the phrase is possibly evidence that there was concern about protecting the reputation of Christ when citing scripture. He also argues that there is no good reason for the scribes to have either intentionally or accidentally omitted the article, therefore the reading as we have it is clearly superior.

Next, I’ll look at the other options for solving the problem of this “contradiction.”