This is the official ping list for Depths of Pentecost: I’m a Christian blogger who writes weekly Bible lessons. Topics range from Bible studies, apologetics, theology, history, and occasionally current events. Every now and then I upload sermons or classes onto YouTube.
Let me know if you’d like to added to the Depths of Pentecost ping list. New posts are up every Saturday, videos every Wednesday.
When placed upon a blog... yes. Absolutely.
The underlying error in this question is the equating “Word of God” with the Bible. The Bible is man’s recording of the Word of God. Man is prone to errors and miss the intent of God’s word.
I think all alleged discrepancies can be satisfactory explained, and i overall reject the premise that the earlier extant manuscripts (mss) are better, for the later ones can be copies of even earlier ones which wore out. But one sentence of yours seems to need correcting, that "we’re still left with a handful of major differences between the modern New Testament and the original Greek fragments." For it is my understanding that we simply do not have any original Greek fragments apart from a minute scrap.
As for an
apparent discrepancy in Mark 2. Realizing that it contained an irrefutable mistake, he questioned whether or not the Bible contained more mistakes, which would prove it to be man-made. Ehrman is now a controversial leading voice in the skeptic community and author of the best-selling book Misquoting Jesus.
I do not find this to be a "irrefutable mistake" and neither should Ehrman have. The Greek word which is translated "in the days of" is translated "before" 18 times in the KJV accordin to my KJV concordance software: : Mat_10:18, Mar_13:9, Luk_21:12, Act_10:17, Act_23:30, Act_24:19-20 (2), Act_25:9, Act_25:26 (2), Act_26:2, 1Co_6:1 (2), 1Co_6:6, 2Co_7:14, 1Ti_5:19, 1Ti_6:13, Rev_10:11 Robertson's offers that "It is possible that both father and son bore both names (1Sa_22:20; 2Sa_8:17; 1Ch_18:16), Abiathar mentioned though both involved."
And Poole comments,
A Besides that those words, epi ’ Abiayar, do not necessarily signify in the days of Abiathar, as we translate it, no more than epi metoicesiav signifies in the carrying into captivity, but about the time, or near the time; which it was, for Ahimelech was presently after it (possibly within a few days) cut off, as we read, 1Sa_22:17,18; and Abiathar was a more noted man than his father Ahimelech, enjoying the priesthood more than forty years, and being the person who was made famous by carrying the ephod to David.
Barnes states,
son of “Ahimelech.” Some difficulty has been felt in reconciling these accounts. The probable reason as to why Mark says it was in the days of “Abiathar” is that Abiathar was better known than Ahimelech. The son of the high priest was regarded as his successor, and was often associated with him in the duties of his office. It was not improper, therefore, to designate him as high priest even during the life of his father, especially as that was the name by which he was afterward known.
“Abiathar,” moreover, in the calamitous times when David came to the throne, left the interest of Saul and fled to David, bringing with him the ephod, one of the special garments of the high priest. For a long time, during David’s reign, he was high priest, and it became natural, therefore, to associate “his” name with that of David; to speak of David as king, and Abiathar the high priest of his time. This will account for the fact that he was spoken of rather than his father. At the same time this was strictly true, that this was done in the days of “Abiathar,” who was afterward high priest, and was familiarly spoken of as such; as we say that “General” Washington was present at the defeat of Braddock and saved his army, though the title of “General” did not belong to him until many years afterward. Compare the notes at Luk_2:2.
Gill adds,
t might be observed, that in the Persic version of Mark it is rendered, "under Abimelech the high priest";...let it be further observed, that the fact referred to was done in the days of Abiathar, though it was before he was an high priest; and the particle επι may be so rendered, about, or "before Abiathar was high priest", as it is in Mat_1:11. Besides, Abiathar was the son of an high priest, and succeeded his father in the office: and might be at this time his deputy, who acted for him, or he by has advice; and according to a rule the Jews (l) themselves give, "the son of an high priest, who is deputed by his father in his stead, הרי כהן גדול אמור, "lo! he is called an high priest".''
And it seems as if both father and son had two names, and were sometimes called by the one, and sometimes by the other: for as the father is sometimes called Abiathar, the son is called Ahimelech, or Abimelech, as in the places mentioned; and which refer to the times when David was king of Israel, and long after the death of Saul, and consequently long after Ahimelech, and the rest of the priests at Nob, were killed by the order of Saul: wherefore Ahimelech, or Abimelech, in the said places, must be the son of Abiathar; and who afterwards was thrust out of the priesthood by Solomon, for joining with Adonijah in his usurpation, 1Ki_1:25.
And from whence it appears, that his father was called Abiathar also, and which some take to be their family name; and if so, then there is no difficulty, and the evangelist rightly says, that this affair was in the days of Abiathar: but be it that he intends the son, what has been before observed is a sufficient solution of this difficulty; for the evangelist does not say that Abiathar was high priest, when David came and eat the showbread; he only says, "it was in the days of Abiathar the high priest": for certain it is, that this happened in his days; and as certain, that he was an high priest; and Mark might with great propriety call him so, though he was not strictly one, till after this business was over: besides, he was not only the son of an high priest, and it may be his deputy, and some have thought officiated at this time, his father being sick or infirm through old age; but inasmuch as his father was directly killed by the order of Saul, he narrowly escaping, immediately succeeded him in the office of the high priesthood; and therefore his being an high priest so very near the time of this action, without any impropriety and impertinence, and especially without incurring the charge of falsehood, the evangelist might express himself as he does.
All these are classic evangelical commenters (available for free thru the E-sword module ) whom Bart ("Barf?") Ehrman would have known of, and for him to find this to be an "irrefutable mistake" indicates more of a desire to find something to justify his departure from Biblical faith than reasonable research and conclusion.
And you should not have allowed Ehrman's skepticism here to go unchallenged.