Did Mark make a mistake?

[Hellisreal]

Simply curious what kind of thoughts/ideas everyone has on this bible stumper:

Mark Chapter 2 23-28

Read it very carefully.

Now, read 1 Sam 21:1-6

Any thoughts? Reasons for the major mistake?

 

[Talmida]

Maybe he just wasn’t very good at history?

The Gospel writer knew that Jesus made the comparison to David’s behaviour, but mixed up which priest was in charge way back when.

Abiathar was high priest during David’s reign, his father Ahimelech was priest when David ate the bread.

The Gospel writer probably connected Abiathar with David’s reign, forgetting that David ate the bread BEFORE he became king.

The Scriptures are TRUE, but not necessarily accurate.

 

[Hellisreal]

Maybe he just wasn’t very good at history?

The Gospel writer knew that Jesus made the comparison to David’s behaviour, but mixed up which priest was in charge way back when.

Abiathar was high priest during David’s reign, his father Ahimelech was priest when David ate the bread.

The Gospel writer probably connected Abiathar with David’s reign, forgetting that David ate the bread BEFORE he became king.

The Scriptures are TRUE, but not necessarily accurate.

Problem number one with your analogy:

Mark was already familliar with the Hewbrew Scriptures and could have easily found it in there.

So, was it Mark who made the mistake? Or a copyist? Or did someone else write the Gospel and not Mark?

Its a very big mistake in my mind., and considering its in a gospel, all the more.

 

[Talmida]

Problem number one with your analogy:

Mark was already familliar with the Hewbrew Scriptures and could have easily found it in there.

So, was it Mark who made the mistake? Or a copyist? Or did someone else write the Gospel and not Mark?

Its a very big mistake in my mind., and considering its in a gospel, all the more.

Scholars tell us that we don’t really know who wrote any of the Gospels, but that it is possible that Mark is the John Mark mentioned in Acts and that the Gospel of Mark was written around 64 AD. Mark might have never met Jesus, and the stories about him would have been almost 30 years old.

On top of that, how do we know that Mark was familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures?

The Hebrew Scriptures were not all gathered in one book, they were in several separate scrolls. Different people had copies and paraphrases in various different languages.

Was Mark a fisherman, a labourer, a priest, a merchant, a peasant or an educated man? Did he know the scriptures in Hebrew or in Greek or in translation? Did he study them, or simply hear them read in the synagogue? Was he a Jew, or a Gentile?

I often wonder if God didn’t allow little errors in the Scriptures on purpose, to remind us that they do contain human error as well as Divine Truth.

 

[Hellisreal]

Scholars tell us that we don’t really know who wrote any of the Gospels, but that it is possible that Mark is the John Mark mentioned in Acts and that the Gospel of Mark was written around 64 AD. Mark might have never met Jesus, and the stories about him would have been almost 30 years old.

On top of that, how do we know that Mark was familiar with the Hebrew Scriptures?

The Hebrew Scriptures were not all gathered in one book, they were in several separate scrolls. Different people had copies and paraphrases in various different languages.

Was Mark a fisherman, a labourer, a priest, a merchant, a peasant or an educated man? Did he know the scriptures in Hebrew or in Greek or in translation? Did he study them, or simply hear them read in the synagogue? Was he a Jew, or a Gentile?

I often wonder if God didn’t allow little errors in the Scriptures on purpose, to remind us that they do contain human error as well as Divine Truth.

What are the earliest dated manuscripts of Mark that we have?

I am not even questioning the date scholars think the gospel of Mark was written. The whole gist of Mark is far different than the other 3 gospels.

Later in Mark 4 Jesus is saying the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds on the earth.

 

[batteddy]

Haydock’s notes say:

“The priest from whom David had these loaves is called Achimelech 1 K. xxi. The most probable answer to this difficulty is, that the priest had both these names of Achimelech and Abiathar, as also his father had before him. For he that (1 K. xxii.) is called Abiathar, the son of Achimelech, is called 2 K. viii. 17, Achimelech, the son of Abiathar. See also 1 Par. xviii. 16…others say that Abiathar, son of Achimelech, was present and sanctioned the deed of his father and therefore made the deed his own.”

Remember, that in traditional Catholic bibles…1 and 2 Samuels are called 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Kings are called 3 and 4 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles are called 1 and 2 Parlipomenon.

 

[Hellisreal]

Haydock’s notes say:

“The priest from whom David had these loaves is called Achimelech 1 K. xxi. The most probable answer to this difficulty is, that the priest had both these names of Achimelech and Abiathar, as also his father had before him. For he that (1 K. xxii.) is called Abiathar, the son of Achimelech, is called 2 K. viii. 17, Achimelech, the son of Abiathar. See also 1 Par. xviii. 16…others say that Abiathar, son of Achimelech, was present and sanctioned the deed of his father and therefore made the deed his own.”

Remember, that in traditional Catholic bibles…1 and 2 Samuels are called 1 and 2 Kings, 1 and 2 Kings are called 3 and 4 Kings, and 1 and 2 Chronicles are called 1 and 2 Parlipomenon.

Thanks, yes I remember that but wanting both Protestants and Catholics to respond I chose the most popular understanding (and assumed most bible reading Catholics know this, but thanks for pointing that out I should have used both! )

 

[Hellisreal]

Come to think of it, does anyone have a Protestant commentary to illuminate us with?

We can see what the Haydock says, but what about a Protestant POV?

 

[Hellisreal]

By the time Mark was written, the Hebrew Scriptures must have been circulating already through the communities. Scripture was read at corporate worship. This is making me wonder even more now…

 

[runandsew]

I have heard my hero, Scott Hahn, the king of explaining apparent errors in the bible explain this one before.
I can’t remember which audio program I heard it in, it was either “Our Fathers Plan” or his bible study on Matthew.
But in it he explained that though this wasn’t the high priest, or it was his son or something like that that. I can’t remember exactly what Scott said, but there was reasoning behind why Mark gave the name he did. Sorry I can’t be more precise, but it has been a while since I heard the answer. It was Scott’s Gospel “spin control”. LOL
Maybe someone else can remember the exact reasoning why Mark did that, in the mean time I will re listen to the portion of Our Fathers plan to see if that is where I heard it.

I can vaguely remember that it had to due with the fact that the sin of the father was greater than the son, or something about the person mentioned would ring a bell with the Jews of the time and they would remember about what had happened in the temple.

again sorry that I can’t remember exactly what he said, I didn’t think anyone would quiz me on it later.

 

[lak611]

Come to think of it, does anyone have a Protestant commentary to illuminate us with?

We can see what the Haydock says, but what about a Protestant POV?

Exactly what verses in Mark are these? I have several Protestant commentaries that I downloaded from e-Sword. I can look up the verses and see what the commentaries say.

 

[Hellisreal]

I have heard my hero, Scott Hahn, the king of explaining apparent errors in the bible explain this one before.
I can’t remember which audio program I heard it in, it was either “Our Fathers Plan” or his bible study on Matthew.
But in it he explained that though this wasn’t the high priest, or it was his son or something like that that. I can’t remember exactly what Scott said, but there was reasoning behind why Mark gave the name he did. Sorry I can’t be more precise, but it has been a while since I heard the answer. It was Scott’s Gospel “spin control”. LOL
Maybe someone else can remember the exact reasoning why Mark did that, in the mean time I will re listen to the portion of Our Fathers plan to see if that is where I heard it.

I can vaguely remember that it had to due with the fact that the sin of the father was greater than the son, or something about the person mentioned would ring a bell with the Jews of the time and they would remember about what had happened in the temple.

again sorry that I can’t remember exactly what he said, I didn’t think anyone would quiz me on it later.

Just look at my screen name. LOL. I will be quizzing away so get ready!
You will feel as if I am pure Hell with my quizzing. LOL.

 

[Athanasius]

Come to think of it, does anyone have a Protestant commentary to illuminate us with?

We can see what the Haydock says, but what about a Protestant POV?

This may be helpful.

 

[lak611]

Come to think of it, does anyone have a Protestant commentary to illuminate us with?

We can see what the Haydock says, but what about a Protestant POV?

I found the verse.

Matthew Henry’s Commentary says this

This, it is said, David did in the days of Abiathar the High-Priest; or just before the days of Abiathar, who immediately succeeded Abimelech his father in the pontificate, and, it is probable, was at that time his father’s deputy, or assistant, in the office; and he it was that escaped the massacre, and brought the ephod to David.

John Wesley’s Commentary says this

Mar 2:26 - In the days of Abiathar the high priest - Abimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest then; Abiathar himself not till some time after. This phrase therefore only means, In the time of Abiathar, who was afterward the high priest. 1Sa_21:6.

Adam Clarke’s Commentary says this

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. The Persic reads Abimelech instead of Abiathar. Theophylact supposes that Abiathar was the priest, and Ahimelech or Abimelech the high priest, and thus endeavors to reconcile both the sacred historians. Others reconcile the accounts thus: Ahimelech was called Ahimelech Abiathar, אב ab, father, understood; and Abiathar was called Abiathar Ahimelech, בן ben, son, understood. Probably they both officiated in the high priesthood; and the name of the office was indifferently applied to either.

The Protestant commentators basically say the same thing as the Catholic ones.

 

[carol_marie]

The Scriptures are TRUE, but not necessarily accurate.

How so? Accurate means to be free from error. How could something be TRUE - yet full of error?

I believe the scriptures are inspired by God and are both true & without error.

 

[Hellisreal]

This may be helpful.

Thank you for the link.

I am going to try and read it, but its not a bible commentary its an apologetic. How does a bible only person deal with this one? Or how do they reconcile it if their minister never speaks about it?

 

[Hellisreal]

Exactly what verses in Mark are these? I have several Protestant commentaries that I downloaded from e-Sword. I can look up the verses and see what the commentaries say.

Mark 2 verses 23-28 thanks!

 

[Hellisreal]

How so? Accurate means to be free from error. How could something be TRUE - yet full of error?

I believe the scriptures are inspired by God and are both true & without error.

Well, if you have a loose interpretation of what constitutes error, fine.

 

[Valke2]

It seems the most logical answer to your question is “yes”. Mark made a mistake.

 

[Hellisreal]

It seems the most logical answer to your question is “yes”. Mark made a mistake.

Thank you. I dont see what the big deal is in admitting that. All this dancing around it and lengthy explainations. I think he merely slipped up, or the copyiest did when copying from the original manuscript. What’s wrong with admitting a mistake? We ought to face reality.