some requirements of God's laws might be relaxed in case of necessity. To this Scripture example our Lord refers his adversaries. They found nothing to reply to
names, and that Abiathar was frequently called Abimelech, and Abimelech Abiathar. (See in proof of this, 2 Sam. viii. 17 ; 1 Chron. viii. 16, and xxiv. 3.)
2. Lightfoot would translate the words, " In the days of Abiathar, the son of the High Priest," and says he is named rather than his father because he brought the Ephod to David, and by him inquiry was made by Urim and Thummim. He also says, that the Jews by "Abiathar" understood the Urim and Thummim, and to say that the thing was done " under Abiathar" would show that it was done by divine direction.
3. Whitby thinks that by " the High Priest" here, we are not to understand him who was strictly so called, but only one who was an eminent man of the order. He quotes as examples, Matt. ii. 4, xxvi. 3, xxvii. 62 ; John xi. 47 ; Mark xiv. 10, 43.
4. Some think that both Abimelech and Abiathar officiated as High Priests at the same time. That there was nothing altogether unusual in there being two Chief Priests at once, is shown by 1 Sam. viii. 17, where two names are given as " the Priests."
5. Some think that there has been a mistake made in transcribing the original words of St. Mark in this place, and some words have been inserted or wrongly written. Beza's manuscript omits the words translated, " in the time of Abiathar the High Priest," altogether. The St. Gall manuscript and the G-othic version have the word " Priest" simply, and not " High Priest." The Persian version has " Abimelech" instead of " Abiathar." However, it is only fair to say that the evidence of the great majority of manuscripts and versions is in favor of the text as it stands.
Some of these solutions of the difficulty are evidently more probable than others. But any one of them is far more reasonable and deserv- ing of belief than to suppose, as some have asserted, that St. Mark made a blunder ! Such a theory destroys the whole principle of the inspiration of Scripture. Transcibers of the Bible have possibly made occasional mistakes. The original writers were inspired in the writ- ing of every word, and therefore could not err.