withallyourmind.net

This is post number 4 in a short series examining one alleged contradiction of scripture. The “contradiction” in question is the one which which propelled Bart Ehrman down the path of agnosticism, the contradiction of Mark 2:21 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6. Who was high priest at the time when David entered the temple and ate the holy bread, Abiathar or Ahimelech? In the last post, I examined the first of five possibile solutions offered by Dan Wallace - the text as we have it is incorrect and should read otherwise. We concluded that the text is most likely what was originally written. Now to other options. Perhaps Jesus, Peter, or Mark made a mistake or were intentionally Midrashic.

Perhaps, then, Jesus was mistaken or he was intentionally midrashic (i.e., he intentionally embellished the story to make a point). Some have argued that since Jesus’ humanity was no different than ours, except that he did not sin, and since Jesus doubtless made mistakes as a child, even in the area of knowledge, it is possible he simply erred by virtue of his humanity. This approach does not necessarily deny his deity, since, it is argued, this was not sin, only a case of mistaken identity.

Could Jesus have embellished the story to make a point? Supporting this theory of Midrashic embellishment, there are several features in the Mark passage which are absent from the 1 Samuel passage. Some evangelicals, however, might find this suggestion more troublesome than the explanation. Against this proposal, if Mark 2 is a midrashic embellishment, one wonders why Matthew, the most Jewish of all the Gospels (and therefore perhaps the most likely to embellish), omitted “when Abiathar was high priest.”

Could Mark’s source, probably Peter, have made a mistake or have been intentionally Midrashic. Wallace argues that if Peter was Mark’s source and was mistaken, he probably would have given this sermon on many occasions and surely would have been corrected on his historical faux pas. Regarding midrashic embellishment, the same problems apply here as in the case for Christ’s embellishment.

Another option is that Mark, not Peter, made the error in reporting what his source said or that he was intentionally Midrashic. This is the view which is most popular among non-evangelical scholars, many simply assuming that this is the case. It is unlikely that he was intentionally Midrashic, given his audience. Additionally, if either Mark or his source erred, it seems inerrancy must be surrendered.

Next, I will examine the last proposed solution to the problem of Mark 2:26.