top of page
Search

Did Jesus Contradict 1 Samuel 21 In Mark 2:26?

This Article has a YouTube video that summarizes the main points made:


I am back to tackle another contradiction, and this one is the one that made the Biblical Scholar Bart Erhman begin his deconstruction journey. This supposed contradiction was the first step in his leaving his faith, making him genuinely question Biblical authority and reliability. But is this an actual contradiction? Did Jesus actually mispeak and name the wrong high priest in Mark 2:26? Or is more than meets the eye going on? Is this even a real issue worth leaving the faith over?


In Mark 2, Jesus and the disciples are walking through fields of grain and gathering food on the Sabbath. The Pharisees then notice them in the act and call them out for violating the Sabbath, essentially calling into question Jesus' legitimacy as a Rabbi. Jesus responds to them by informing them of the fact that the purpose of the Sabbath was for man, not for God. Jesus then references 1 Samuel 21:1, when David entered the Tabernacle at Nob and ate the show bread with God, allowing it, despite it breaking the Law. But Jesus seems to be making a mistake. Depending on the translation you are reading (e.g., NET, or NRSV), Jesus says, "How he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was the priest." (Mark 2:26). But 1 Samuel 21:1 says, "Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest." So did Jesus contradict the Old Testament by saying Abiathar was the Priest at Nob? Is this a genuine contradiction, hence why Bart left his faith? Is the Bible saying Abiathar was and wasn't the priest at Nob?


It's All About The Greek!


To thoroughly grasp this issue and its solution, I need to convey four key points that will unravel the "contradiction" and highlight where the skeptic is erring. (1) The Greek wording for Mark 2:26 may more accurately be translated to "in the days of Abiathar." As the word ἐπί, when paired with a genitive noun, is most commonly used like the English "in the days of," rather than a strict "when." This would make sense, as Abiathar was alive at that time. David had to flee to him after Saul killed his father, Ahimelech. The main point is this: being Ahimelech's son, Abiathar would have been present when David entered the tabernacle to eat the showbread (1 Samuel 21:1). But returning to the Greek, some skeptics will defend the translation of "when Abiathar" rather than "in the days of Abiathar", indicating that Jesus did think he was the priest at the time, which leads to the second point.


(2) Professor of New Testament Studies Dan Wallace offers a rebuttal to this defense by admitting that the Greek may be translated to "when," but that it's not a necessary reading of the text. In other words, the translation is not as strict as the skeptic is making it seem.


“The construction ἐπί+ genitive noun is frequently used with a temporal sense outside of Mark—with a meaning similar to ‘in the days of…’ BDAG lists numerous biblical and patristic references under ἐπί with a genitive for time, all in the sense of 'in the time of, under (kings or other rulers.’ CF., e.g., Luke 4:27 (‘in the time of Elisha’), Luke 3:2 (‘in the time of the high priest, Annas and Caiaphas’), and even Mark 2:26 (‘in the time of Abiathar the high priest’).”1

Other verses that use ἐπί as "in the days of" include Luke 3:2, 4:27, 20:37, Mark 12:26, Acts 11:28, and Hebrews 1:2. The phrase "in the days of" functions as a temporal marker indicating the time period during which the event took place.2 In the New Testament, it often appears with genitive forms to denote historical periods like "in the time of Elisha" or "in the time of Abiathar the high priest." The phrase is therefore both anchoring events within history with a literary function, aswell as a rhetorical function that invites readers to investigate the narrative importance of the event spoken of.3 One could thus make an argument that the Greek more accurately reads "in the days of Abiathar." Perhaps an example would be helpful,


“This would be like saying that during the life of Augustus, Cleopatra, and Mark Antony died after battle, but their deaths happened before Octavian was called Augustus.”4

This does not mean that Octavian was named Augustus at the time, as the person saying this is being general and not making a false report. It would also be similar to me saying, "Do you remember President Trump's Golden Escalator Ride in 2015?" I did not make a mistake by calling him President Trump, even though he was not president at the time. I am using general language, not specified language. Edward D. Andrews further supports this by applying it to Mark 2:26,


“Jesus did not state that Abiathar was high priest at the time of this incident, only ‘in the time of…’ Contextually, Abiathar is actually present when the event took place.”5

(3) Inspiring Philosophy has a great short video debunking Bart Erhman's claims about Mark 2.4 In this video, he says that Bart does the same thing in the examples above in his book Misquoting Jesus on page 9. When speaking about Mark 2:26 and Jesus' reference to David, Bart called him King David, even though he wasn't king at the time. He also called the tabernacle at Nob the Temple, which wasn't built until David's son, Solomon, succeeded his Father as King.

Is Bart Ehrman not accurately recording the event, just as he claims Jesus does? If Bart can do what he accuses Jesus of in his academic work, even citing it as his reason for leaving his faith, why does he still accuse Jesus of making a contradiction when it seems clear he isn't? It's more likely that Jesus was using general language to refer to "in the days of Abiathar" to indicate a time period, as Abiathar took his father's place after his death, and most modern translations use this wording (CSB, ESV, NJKV, KJV, LEB, NIV, DBY, YLT, etc.). Jesus may have even referred to Abiathar because he was well known, as he was very close to David following the events of Ahimelech's death.


The last point regards different traditions regarding how the priestly duties took place at Nob between a father and son. (4) New Testament Scholar Craig Evans makes the argument by highlighting two traditions that existed regarding the two priestly figures, Ahimelech and Abiathar. The first tradition portrays Ahimelech as the bread-giver, while the secondary tradition presents Abiathar as the son of Ahimelech, appearing alongside Zadok in later texts. In 2 Samuel 15, both Abiathar and Ahimelech functioned as joint high priests.6 So it is very likely that both father and son may have shared the high priest responsibilities, similar to that seen with Eli's sons or Annas and Caiaphas (1 Samuel 2:12, Luke 3:2). That is why Abiathar was most likely present when David showed up in 1 Samuel 21, as he and his father would have been sharing the priestly duties. Later, when his father died, he became a high priest. Even later, he once again shares the duties with Zadok during Absalom's rebellion in 2 Samuel 15.


He also could have been referred to proleptically, called by his later title as the priest, despite his not yet holding that title. Either explanation suffices, and it very well could have been both. As Abiathar could have shared the duties, and therefore present with his father, while at the same time Jesus uses his high priest title to mark the time period, and because he may have been more familiar as a close friend of King David.7 This contradiction is therefore the result of being completely unreasonable in being strict with what the text means, ignoring the fluid translation of the Greek, other instances of word usage, ignoring historical facts about priestly duties, and selectively applying this criterion to isolated sections of the Gospels. Because, by the same criteria, Bart himself and a lot of other scholars are just as guilty and thus should have no credibility. But nobody is willing to take that leap of faith. It takes more faith to believe this is a genuine contradiction than not to, and the textual evidence suffices.


This supposed contradiction is not a contradiction at all. (1) Abiathar was Ahimelech's son and would have been present. (2) The Greek wording does not necessarily need to be translated strictly as "when Abiathar," and in many other instances, the word ἐπί is used to mean in the days of. (3) Bart Ehrman himself makes similar "mistakes" in his scholarly work, and therefore should not be considered reliable, yet no one treats him as such. (4) It was common for two high priests to share responsibilities, as seen elsewhere in scripture, so it is entirely reasonable to expect Ahimelech and Abiathar to both be in the tabernacle performing priestly duties (Abiathar even shares the position with Zadok during David's reign in 1 Samuel 15). When it comes to solving these supposed issues, we are continually displaying the historical reliability of the Gospels. It is these instances that, I believe, strengthen our faith and defence the most. As one of the most common objections to Christian belief, I hear are supposed contradictions. But, as we shall continually see, there are no contradictions that sacrifice the reliability of the texts that have been passed down from the very people who walked, ate, spoke to, and slept beside Jesus for three years, witnessing His death and resurrection. Amen.


(2) (William Arndt et al., in A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000], 366–367)

(3) (Ethelbert William Bullinger, Figures of Speech Used in the Bible [London; New York: Eyre & Spottiswoode; E. & J. B. Young & Co., 1898], 455)

(5) (Edward D. Andrews, Misrepresenting Jesus: Debunking Bart D. Ehrman’s Misquoting Jesus, pgs 34-35)

(6) (Craig Evans, “Apologetics Commentary on the Gospel of Mark,” in The Gospels and Acts, ed. Jeremy Royal Howard, The Holman Apologetics Commentary on the Bible [Holman Reference, 2013])

(7) (Got Questions Ministries, Got Questions? Bible Questions Answered [Bellingham, WA: Faithlife, 2014–2021])








Comments

bottom of page