Human fingerprints - Abiathar the High Priest

 Mark 2 tell the story about Jesus healing a man on the Sabbath. He is challenged by the Pharisees who ask Jesus why he is doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath. (v. 24)

Jesus responds as follows. "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions." (v. 25-26).

This passage refers to 1 Samuel 21, when David is on the run and goes to Nob and seeks sanctuary among the priests. The text identifies the priest as Ahimilek (v. 3) who gave David the "consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away." (v.6)

The point - Mark 2 insinuates that this priest was Abiathar but 2 Samuel says it was Ahimilek. Later in the text, Abiathar is identified as the son of Ahimilek (2 Samuel 8:17).

What's the point? Mark 2 says that Abiathar was the high priest at the time, but 2 Samuel says that Ahimiled was it.

There is a way to protect Biblical inerrancy, but it is a stretch. The text Mark 2 says, "In the days of Abiathar the high priest". So, technically speaking, Abiathar was alive at the time.

However, the text makes clear, or at least strongly implies, that Abiathar was not just merely alive, but was the high priest at the time. This is not the case at all. It was Ahimilek, his father.

This is the equivalent of Jesus forgetting where he left the car keys. On one hand, it points to the full humanity of Jesus. That Jesus made forgetful errors. A first century Rabbi should know the story. 

What can we take from this?

The Gospel writer of Mark just got it in wrong in the details. It's a human fingerprint. He likely wrote it down two or three decades after it occurred and made a simple human error. I find this explanation far more satisfying and honest than trying to fit in "days of Abiathar the high priest" to mean he was alive, but not yet the high priest.

It should be noted that this story of Jesus is also recorded in Luke 6:3-4 and also in Matthew 12:3-4. Neither of those mention Abiathar, Ahimilek, or any priest.

If they fail to mention any name at all, then it is further evidence that the writer of Mark made an error.

The other is the focus of this book. That it points to the human fingerprints of the Bible itself. That it has errors. Perhaps those errors were made by Jesus, or by Mark the Gospel writer, or maybe a copying mistake in the manuscript.

Idea that the original version was inerrant, but the manuscript copying were not divinely inspiring.

This is cheap. Because as used, the modern manuscripts of the Bible are quoted and cited as authoritative. There is usually no hedge that any version of the modern Bible, which the same preacher is teaching from, should be discounted.