3rd time I'm asking - still no Christian answer?

Question

Is it okay that Jesus messed up on some history?

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

Well I guess I know what to say in the future to get an answer... man, sometimes its like pulling teeth around here.

I'm still not convinced by the various work-arounds some proposed, I'll look into them anyways.

For those that dismiss this question, you should be ashamed... blind faith is what makes people follow non-Christian faiths... maybe you should consider not being blind yourself, what if arguments against Christianity hold weight?

AND, the Bible claims inerrancy, so if there is an error, then the Bible is flat out lying. If Jesus was wrong about history, then that tells us something very interesting about him doesn't it?

Stop being ignorant, it only pushes me away more

You guys are very silly... first you deny that names have any meaning, and that fathers and sons can exchange names freely. Then there's the denial that Ahimelech was a high priest, on the grounds that it didn't explicitly say it in the particular referenced verse. The rest of the explanations basically went like such "the bible is perfect because the bible is perfect". Thanks guys! I guess now I'm extra sure that either the Bible has mistakes or Jesus was capable of making mistakes... either way... kinda turns Christianity upside down

Answer 1

In Mark we read that Jesus said that Abiathar was priest when David received and ate some of the bread of the Presence from the tabernacle. In terms of the point that Jesus is making it really does not matter who was priest, for the issue is the breaking of the rule about a layperson eating consecrated bread and its application to Jesus' disciples breaking the sabbath regulations. However, when we look up the incident in 1 Samuel 21:1-6, the text reads "Ahimelech" rather than "Abiathar." Was Jesus mistaken? Surely the Pharisees would have caught the error?

The first point to note is that Abiathar and Ahimelech are son and father. The son, Abiathar, first appears in 1 Samuel 22:20 as the one son of Ahimelech who escaped when Saul slaughtered the priests of Nob and their families for having helped David. Abiathar then remains with David and later serves as high priest during his reign. It looks like the son has been switched with the father.

The second thing we should look at is the textual tradition. There is no evidence that this switch is a textual error. It is true that the Western text does omit the priest's name, but none of the other textual traditions do, and the Western text does sometimes correct or add to the text in various books. When the Western text's reading remains unsupported by other textual traditions, it is not taken as very weighty. In fact, the Western text actually follows the other Synoptics, for Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4 both drop this offending name. Thus there appears to be solid evidence that Mark wrote "Abiathar."

There have been attempts to solve the problem by arguing that "in the days of Abiathar the high priest" should be understood to mean "In the section [of Samuel] entitled 'Abiathar,' " since this section explains how Abiathar joined David (and there were no chapter and verse numbers for citing Scripture in Jesus' day). However, if that is what it means, Mark found a most awkward way of expressing it. To mean this, the Greek phrase with "Abiathar" in it should have been placed in Mark 2:25 right after "Have you never read?"

Likewise some argue that the phrase means "when Abiathar who became high priest was alive." However, if this was what were intended (if Jesus had forgotten the name of Abiathar's father or thought his listeners would not recognize it), a phrase like "in the days of the father of Abiathar the high priest" or "in the childhood of Abiathar the high priest" would have expressed the thought clearly. The phrase as it stands would express such an idea so unclearly and awkwardly that it is unlikely that it means this.

What, then, are the possibilities? First, we can be fairly certain that Mark is not covering up the Pharisaic response to an error Jesus made. If Mark had been aware of such a problem, he would have omitted the whole story or changed the name rather than simply omitted the Pharisaic response. Mark probably did not see any other problem with this passage than the issue of Jesus' defending his disciples' breaking the sabbath regulations.

Second, if Mark did not see the problem, he did not see it for one of three reasons: (1) he actually wrote Ahimelech and the more familiar name crept into the text at a very early stage, perhaps as an error in the first copying (often texts were read aloud to scribes making copies, so an oral substitution of the more familiar name for the less familiar would be quite possible), or (2) he received the story as it is and did not himself realize that there was a problem with it (in the latter case, we do not know if Jesus actually said "Abiathar" or if he said "Ahimelech" and the more familiar Abiathar was substituted in the course of oral transmission), or (3) his view of historical accuracy was not bothered by such an issue, since the main point is not affected by it. Whatever the case, Mark apparently did not realize that there was a problem.

The truth is that this is one of the problems in Scripture for which we do not have a fully satisfactory solution. We do not have Mark's original edition to check which name was in it, nor do we have Mark here to question about his state of mind. We do not have a tape recording of the preaching of Peter (thought by many to be the source of Mark) to see if he was using the right or the wrong name. While many ancient historians would not have been bothered by such an innocuous slip, it did seem to bother Matthew and Luke, so we cannot be sure that it would not have bothered Mark.

Thus we can either arbitrarily select one of the speculative solutions mentioned in the previous paragraph, perhaps choosing the one which pleases us the best, or we can say, "We honestly don't know what the answer is to this problem, nor are we likely to ever know." In that case, this verse makes plain that our knowledge is always partial so that our trust remains in God rather than in what we know.

Answer 2

Someone already pointed out that some people went by several names. Here is the Biblical content to go along with that claim.

1 Chronicles 24:6 says that Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar. 2 Samuel 8:17 says the same thing. The Geneva Bible footnotes written by some of the reformers says that for this reason it is concluded that both of them went by 2 names. When talking of the two people together, they call them by different names from each other to differentiate between the two. One place they call the father Ahimelech and another they call him Abiathar. So Jesus didn't make an error. He could have said either name and been talking of the same person.

Answer 3

I'm winging this as I haven't yet had a chance to actually read the chapters before and after, but if my memory serves me well, Ahimelech was not referred to as "high priest" in any chapters before or up to Saul ordering Doeg the Edomite to kill Ahimelech and 84 other priests. David had appointed Abiathar as high priest after he became king, so Abiathar would have been the central figure in what Christ said as the appointment of High Priest by a King of Israel carries considerably more honor and importance than a mere priest. Priests appointed as High Priests by the King were more central in cultural importance. I'll have to check this out later. Right now I'm taking care of my son who just had several teeth pulled earlier today. Be back later.

Answer 4

Yes, Ahimelech had a son named Abiathar, but that was because he named him after his father, Abiathar as mentioned in 2 Samuel 8:17. So, in the days of Abiathar (the father of Ahimelech) and the HIGH priest . . .

Answer 5

Ahimelech the priest and Abiathar was the high priest.. it did not say that both of them where the high priest so what is your point?

No one has ever been able to find a contradiction in the bible. The only ones who go around with year old stories of the same contradictions are the ones who do not wish to hear the answers, but rather just try and stir up trouble.

Answer 6

From 1 Sam 22:1 we learn explicitly that this event took place when Ahimelech , the father of Abiathar was high priest . The apparent discrepancy is satisfactorily explained by interpreting the words in Mark as referring to the lifetime of Abaithar , and not to the term of his holding the office of high priest .It is not implied in Mark that he was actual high priest at the time referred to .Others however , think that the loaves belong to Abiathar , who at this time Le 24:9 a priest .And that he either himself gave them to David or persuaded his father to give them .

Answer 7

Abimelech and Abiathar were both present and alive when the event happened. Considering the Jewish 'custom' of the son following the dad, it is possible that Abiathan was a priest at that time, just not the lead priest while David 'ate the bread'. (I would have to look at it closer to be more precise for now here).

Answer 8

In Mark 2:26, reference is made to an occurrence in "the days of Abiathar the high priest." But from 1 Sam. 22, we learn that this event took place when Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, was high priest. The apparent discrepancy is satisfactorily explained by interpreting the words in Mark as referring to the lifetime of Abiathar, and not to his term of office. It is not implied in Mark that he was actually high priest at the time referred to. Others, however, think that the loaves belonged to Abiathar, who was at that time (Lev. 24:9) a priest, and that he either himself gave them to David, or persuaded his father to give them.

Answer 9

There are no mistakes in the Bible. There are no errors and there are no misprints. The Bible is a perfect work written and published by God himself in modern English (its a miracle). Every word in the Bible is true and whats more even if you take the words out of context or rearrange them there still true. In fact even if you write your own words in a Bible what ever you write becomes absolutely true because if its in the Bible its Gods own word and God is incapable of lying.





Disclaimer: The above is sarcasm. It is not intended to be taken as a serious comment. My apologies for the existence of those who did not recognize that and found my comments either offensive of vindicating.

Answer 10

Abiathar was the HIGH PRIEST, and Ahimelech was an "ordinary priest" (=one priest out of many, but not the high priest).
I don't see any reason why the son wouldn't be able to be high priest instead of the father. In 1 Sam 16 God sends Samuel to Jesse of Betlehem to anoint one of his SONS to KING. Note, the father Jesse was NOT to be the king, but one of his sons. Neither was any of the OLDER brothers chosen to be king, but the YOUNGEST. God doesn't choose people because of their age or "earthly status"..."The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart." (1 Sam 16:7b)
So if the youngest son in a family was made king instead of his father and his older brothers, then why wouldn't a son be able to be high priest instead of his father?