Okay that Jesus got some history wrong?

Question

The Christians wouldn't respond last time, so I'm trying again...

Jesus said in Mark 2:25-26 that David ate bread from the house of God "in the days of Abiathar the high priest".

I Samuel 21:1 says that it was Ahimelech that was priest when David ate the bread...

Abiathar was son of Ahimelech, as stated in I Samuel 22:20

If Jesus had made the mistake the other way around, the mistake could be overlooked, because possibly the father could still be prominent, but in this case no matter what angle you see it, there is no way you would say "in the days of" the son.

Furthermore, Ahimelech wasn't just around, he was directly involved in this historical event, so why reference another person?

Clearly a mix-up, but who's to blame? Read the chapters for yourself, the references are correct

Answer 1

According to 1 Sam 21:1–6, Ahimelech, not Abiathar, was high priest at the time. The most frequent explanation is that Mark’s memory slipped. Such an explanation is impossible for those who embrace a concept of scriptural inerrancy as a result of their view of divine inspiration. The diffculty was felt even by ancient copyists, some of whom omitted “in the days of Abiathar the high priest,” some of whom inserted an article in order to imply that Abiathar was not necessarily high priest at the time and some of whom substituted “priest” for “high priest.” None of these variants has any claim to originality, nor do they solve the problem. The statement was perhaps a scribal gloss that later was accidentally taken into the text.

Another explanation is that the Greek construction that must mean “in the account of” in Mark 12:26 means the same thing here, i.e., in that portion of Samuel that deals with Abiathar. (In the first century there were no chapters and verses; thus such devices as the preceding were necessary to locate passages.) The absence of the Greek word for “days” in v. 26 supports this explanation. Abiathar, however, is not mentioned until the next chapter of 1 Samuel.

Another explanation, building upon the fact that the Aramaic word abba means father (cf. Mark 14:36), is that the original had Abba-Abiathar (i.e., “father of Abiathar,” who was in fact Ahimelech). Abba was then accidentally omitted by an early copyist because its first two letters are the same as the first two of Abiathar. The last is perhaps the best explanation, though it apparently assumes an original Aramaic text. No explanation is completely satisfactory.

Answer 2

at least your reading the bible, read Mark again verse 26 which is not lawful to eat but for the priests , hence the plural tense , it was not uncommon in those days, for fathers an sons to both be priests, Abiathar was the grandson of Ahimelech read 1Samual and you'll see Ahitub was the father of Abiathar three generations were serving God as priests Jesus did not get it wrong,he simply acknowledged the priest that, got away and warned David of what Saul had done,Levis were the only priests seeing how that's how it's always been, since Moses , & Aaron were Levis ; only Levis were to be priests, it was a family thing, an a covenant with God ,

Answer 3

When Mark's text says, "In the days of Abiathar the high priest," this means not during his high priesthood -- for it was under that of his father Ahimelech -- but simply -- in his time. Ahimelech was soon succeeded by Abiathar, whose connection with David, and prominence during his reign, may account for his name, rather than his father's, being here introduced.

Answer 4

chuffed to oblige. even if actual fundies disdain me and my perspectives. evaluate first the Jesus' resurrection is shown by the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, the Pauline letters, James, a million-2 Peter and Hebrews. each of those authors has been consistently shown to write down with above typical readability and integrity. Luke is an historic historian of substantial integrity and arguably the terrific historic historian of the middle East. He tended to apply technical words in connection with political and geographical suggestion. those words have been consistently shown by historic previous and archaeology to be precise. Luke mentions that there have been one extra 500 witnesses to the resurrection of Jesus Christ. I undertaking everyone to grant info that those authors have any shown historic errors of their texts. i might in basic terms ask which you supply those authors the comparable admire which you may supply a journalist (and that i comprehend there are no longer any genuine newshounds on the situations, i'm in basic terms attempting to be amazing) from the vast apple situations. The documentary info of the hot testomony is above reproach and the form of tangible manuscripts dwarfs the subsequent closest document of historic historic previous (those contain the Iliad and the Odyssey). between the terrific archaeologists (initially a Bible skeptic), WF Albright has written, "there is not any longer something yet prejudice against the information of the previous and New Testaments." of direction now, there is particularly some prejudice against Albright besides. And Laine... many have died for a lie. the reality of the Apostles of their martyrdom is that if Jesus did no longer upward push from the lifeless, they died understanding the resurrection grow to be a lie. people die for lies daily, yet people do no longer die for a lie that they comprehend for a actuality is a lie.

Answer 5

Actually there are quite a few passages like this in the bible and in particular the NT. He was just wrong. He was working from memory, or the person writing the gospel was working from memory and got it wrong.

Here is a challenge, there are 46 irreconcilable differences among the resurrection accounts, can you find them all. You really need to lay them out side by side.

Answer 6

"the 1990's will be forever linked to the Clinton presidency".
Clinton wasn't President the entire time (the 1990's)
Wouldn't the first statement mean "in the days of"?
Thanks for getting me questioning - I'm going to continue looking into this!

Answer 7

dude, if you "find" a "mistake" keep it to yourself, honestly, i don't like people like that, and if there is one, like you said, so let it be.