withallyourmind.net

Part 5 of a series on the so-called contradiction of Mark 2:26 and 1 Samuel 21:1-6. We’ve examined several possible solutions to the problem, some of which require abandoning innerancy.

Fortunately, one need not abandon inerrancy to resolve the problem of Mark 2:26. Wallace’s last option, that we are wrong in our interpretation of the text is a viable one. The text, Epi Abiathar archiereos, seems to be the proper reading based on textual criticism. If this is the case, following the advice of Pope Leo XIII, we should ask if the translator has properly given the meaning of the text, or if we do not understand the text. Since Ehrman did not actually provide his “convoluted” answer to the problem of Mark 2:26, I can’t evaluate the reasonability of his answer. However, I see nothing convoluted about simply understanding the text to mean “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,” as opposed to “when Abiathar was high priest.” This is a perfectly acceptable reading. Gleason Archer shows that epi with the genitive (as in epi Abiathar archiereos) simply means “in the time of.” This same construction is found in Acts 11:28, translated “in the time of Claudius” and Hebrews 1:2, “in the time of the last of these days.”

That the incident described by Jesus in Mark occurred during the time of Abiathar is not questioned. The passage does not state that it was Abiathar who was the actual priest with whom David interacted. As described in 1 Samuel, the priest with whom David spoke was Ahimelech. Not long after this incident, King Saul had Ahimelech and the entire community of priests at Nob murdered. Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son escaped and was later appointed high priest by David. Even though Abiathar was not the high priest at the time of the incident, there is nothing unusual about the reference to Abiathar, the high priest in Mark 2, even though his appointment did not occur until after this incident. To further illustrate this point, there is nothing strained about the phrase, “when President Bush was a boy,” although, of course, he was not president as a child. In the incident spoken of by Jesus, Abiathar was not only alive when this event transpired, he was also present, soon becoming high priest in his father’s stead. Understood in this straightforward manner, there is nothing contrary to historical fact in the words of Christ in Mark 2. Norman Geisler and Thomas Howe argue for a similar understanding of this passage.

Next, I will conclude this series with a few brief remarks.