In this series of threads, I shall be examining various narratives in the Bible to establish the extend to which they are internally consistent and how they corroborate with other independent external well attested historical data. In this first thread, I shall examine a passage from the book of Mark (Mark 2: 25 - 26) and 1 Samuel (1 Samuel 21: 1 - 6)


[table]
[tr][td]Mark 2: 23 - 28[/td][td]1 Samuel 21: 1 - 6[/td][/tr]
[tr][td]23 One Sabbath Jesus was going through the grainfields, and as his disciples walked along, they began to pick some heads of grain.
24 The Pharisees said to him, "Look, why are they doing what is unlawful on the Sabbath?"
25 He answered, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need?
26 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."
27 Then he said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
28 So the Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath
[/td][td]1 David went to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. Ahimelech trembled when he met him, and asked, "Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?"
2 David answered Ahimelech the priest, "The king charged me with a certain matter and said to me, 'No one is to know anything about your mission and your instructions.' As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place.
3 Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find."
4 But the priest answered David, "I don't have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women."
5 David replied, "Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual whenever set out. The men's things are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!" 6 So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the LORD and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.
[/td][/tr]
[/table]

Basically, Mark is describing an event that was recorded by Samuel. So at the very least, we would expect him to have checked his source material (or was he inspired) and get his fact right. OK? Wrong!

Mark says that the high priest was Abiathar when in fact the high priest was Ahimelech (correct in Samuel). Abiathar was in fact Ahimelech's son. Not particularly versed in the OT, Mark lets this error into his work.

It is generally believed by the New Testament scholarly community that Mark was the first gospel to be written (around 70 CE) and that the other gospels are in part based on Mark. The other gospel writers (Luke 6:4 and Matt 12: 3) on noticing Mark's error silently correct it.

The apparent inaccuracy is resolved once it is realized that Abiathar and Ahimelech were names of both father and son. This can be seen by a comparison of the following passages:

1) 1 Samuel 14:3 - "And Ahiah, {mg. called Ahimelech} the son of Ahitub . . . "
2) 1 Samuel 22:20 - "And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David."
3) 2 Samuel 8:17 - "And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, were the priests . . . "
4) 1 Chronicles 18:16; 24:6 - same as 2 Samuel 8:17.

Jesus and the account in Samuel refer to Ahimelech (or Abiathar, his other name), the son of Ahitub. There is, therefore, no inaccuracy. Jesus uses one name, and the Samuel account uses the other name, for the same individual

You can read the answers on this website

http://discussions.godandscience.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=1725&start=45

Note: It is Angel (Capitalize) of the Lord.