Once again the hyper-critics pounce. But do we have a reasonable explanation?

Once we are generous with the text, and not hostile, then a solution will emerge. No need to stretch the truth out of shape, either.

I quote from published scholars because I respect them because they are charitable towards the biblical text. I place them on an equal or higher footing than the hostile critics. One thing is certain. Hostile critics cannot claim objectivity over friendly scholars.

The translation is mine. If you would like to see many others, go to biblegateway.com. If you don’t read Greek, ignore the left column. I include it so Greek readers can check my work.

Let’s begin.

Was Abiathar or Ahimelech the High Priest–or Both? (Mark 2:23-26)

23Καὶ ἐγένετο αὐτὸν ἐν τοῖς σάββασιν παραπορεύεσθαι διὰ τῶν σπορίμων, καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἤρξαντο ὁδὸν ποιεῖν τίλλοντες τοὺς στάχυας. 24καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἔλεγον αὐτῷ· ἴδε τί ποιοῦσιν τοῖς σάββασιν ὃ οὐκ ἔξεστιν; 25καὶ λέγει αὐτοῖς· οὐδέποτε ἀνέγνωτε τί ἐποίησεν Δαυὶδ ὅτε χρείαν ἔσχεν καὶ ἐπείνασεν αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ, 26πῶς εἰσῆλθεν εἰς τὸν οἶκον τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως καὶ τοὺς ἄρτους τῆς προθέσεως ἔφαγεν, οὓς οὐκ ἔξεστιν φαγεῖν εἰ μὴ τοὺς ἱερεῖς, καὶ ἔδωκεν καὶ τοῖς σὺν αὐτῷ οὖσιν;

23 And it happened on the Sabbath that he was going along through a grain field, and his disciples began to make their way, plucking heads of grain. 24 The Pharisees were saying to him, “Look! Why do they do on the Sabbath what is not lawful?” 25 He said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he had need and he himself was hungry and those with him, 26 how he went into the house of God at the time of Abiathar the high priest and ate the bread of Presence, which was not lawful to eat, except for the priests, and he also gave some to those who were with him?”

Comments:

23-24:

The section of Scripture is really about a Sabbath lesson. For a commentary on it, go to Mark 2 and scroll down to vv. 23-24 and then 27:

Mark 2

25-26:

Solving the Puzzle Reasonably

1.. General reference of time

The epi (pronounced eh-pea) preposition “At the time of Abiathar the high priest” is a general reference of time: Abiathar is best known as high priest, even though it has technically his father Ahimelech who was the high priest at the time of the event (Decker, p. 65). Son of the high priest and the high priest himself was a flexible designation. Grammarian and Markan scholar Rodney Decker then affirms the solutions, below, in one form or another.

2.. High priest designations at the time of Jesus

The Cultural Background Study Bible solves the puzzle reasonably by the high priestly family bearing the title:

Ahimelek, not his son Abiathar, was the chief priest at the exact time described. By the first century the title “high priest” (though normally in the plural) applied to anyone in the high priestly family, both in the NT and in Josephus (first century Jewish historian) (e.g. Antiquities 20.6 180-81; Wars 4.160, 238. Mark identifies the era by the better known son. Nevertheless, Matthew and Luke are clearer and more precise by omitting the reference to Abiathar. (comment on v. 26)

Note that Matthew and Luke eliminated any ambiguity, but Mark kept it. However, the list of solutions solves it, in my opinion.

3.. The Biblical Theology Study Bible writes of v. 26 that the better- known priest was named:

According to 1 Sam 21, the priest at that time was Abiathar’s father Ahimelech. Jesus may have mentioned Abiathar because Abiathar was was much better known or because Abiathar was the one who subsequently took the ephod–the means by which the king could inquire of God (1 Sam 30:7-8)–to David (1 Sam 22:20; 23:6), thereby confirming David as God’s choice.

4.. Parallel texts in the Greek NT clarifies the issue.

Wessel and Strauss write of the discrepancy between Abiathar here and Ahimelech in 1 Sam. 21:

In defense of Mark’s historicity, however, the text does not actually say that David came to Abiathar, but that these events occurred … “in the [time] of Abiathar, the high priest” … Abiathar is closely linked with David during David’s reign, so his mention could constitute a general reference to that period. A similar reference appears in Luke 3:2, where both Annas and Caiaphas are identified as high priests during Jesus’s ministry. Though Caiaphas was the official high priest, his father-in-law Annas—earlier deposed by the Romans—wielded enormous influence overt he priesthood. (Five of his sons and one son-in-law served as high priests after him.) Another possibility is to translate the preposition epi [pronounced eh-pea] as “in the account of,” as is done in Mark 12:26 … (“in the account of the bush”). First Samuel 21-22 could be called “the account of Abiathar,” since it was he who escaped to David when the priests were massacred at Nob (22:20). Either of these solutions is possible, though neither is entirely satisfactory. We must admit we simply do not know what meaning Mark intended.

5.. Three solutions in reading the Greek epi preposition and perhaps Mark had access to another another tradition

Strauss, writing his own commentary, says there are two possible explanations:

(1) According to 1 Sam. 21:1-6, Abimelech was the high priest and father Abiathar. Abimelech gave the consecrated bread to David. Other passages reverse this and make Abiathar the father of Abimelech (2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 18:16; 24:6). Mark may be following yet another tradition.

(2) Strauss repeats what he and Wessel wrote just above. “When Abiathar was high priest” or more generally to “the time of Abiathar the high priest” or even “the account about Abiathar the high priest.” This would be an account of eponymous dating. (Eponymous means the period is named after the main character, Abiathar, or thing). Abiathar was the high priest during David’s reign.

(3) An analogy: this grammatical construction and the eponymous label is like Mark 12:26, which refers to Moses and the burning bush: “in [the account of] the burning bush.” Thus 1 Samuel 21-22 would be titled “the account of Abiathar the high priest, since he escaped Saul’s murder of the priests at Nob. Abiatha took refuge with David. (Strauss’s comment on v. 26)

6. Abiathar stands in for his father, since Abiathar was better known, just as the comment by the Biblical Theology Study Bible says:

And so we see that the principal, eponymous character takes center stage and stands in for the other characters, like Abimelech. That is, Abiathar stands in for his father in the story, and Mark was simply summarizing Jesus’s words with the main name, Abiathar (William L. Lane, p. 116).

Conclusion

Wessel and Strauss’s observation and Strauss’ explanation by himself satisfy me. Abiathar stands in for his father Abimelech since Abiathar was the main character in the entire account found in 1 Samuel 21-22. Those chapters or account may have even been titled after Abiathar, as the eponymous character.

Further, the use of the epi preposition should also be considered. Instead of translating it as the phrase “at the time of” I could have rendered it as “in the account about Abiathar the high priest (in 1 Samuel 21-22).”

Therefore I see no error, once we read the ancient text charitably.

Personally, I’m glad the Gutenberg printing press was invented 1400 years later. Now the handwritten ancient texts–the four Gospels–can breathe naturally. They have the air of authenticity.

If you would like to see a tentative exploration about the possibilities of minor errors in the Gospels (would your faith be so brittle that it would snap in two?), go to the longer post and scroll down to v. 26:

Mark 2

The Bigger Point

The larger point is that no one’s faith in the Lord should be so brittle that it snaps in two whenever these textual differences or discrepancies appear. We are simply examining a passage in the OT where the high priesthood was within a family and the term is familial and flexible. Faith in the resurrection of Jesus, his Lordship, and his Sonship—his divine status—does not hinge on whether it was Abiathar or Ahimelech. The whole of the four Gospels moves towards the resurrection and ascension of Jesus and proclaims his Lordship and Sonship; the truths of the four Gospels do not stand or fall on these tiny elements in various passages. We must teach the new generation coming up not to have such brittle faith but to keep the plain thing the main thing—his resurrection, his Lordship, and his Sonship. Those three truths are the foundation of our salvation.

Battle for the Bible

There are two extremes in the battle for the Bible.

One is “total inerrancy,” a term that devout theologians and Christian philosophers came up with in 1974 to describe the Bible. Then they and others wrote up a document called “The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy” (1978) (It is available online). The problem is that the Statement’s drafters attached so many exceptions in their articles that it is difficult to believe that “total” means much.

The other extreme is seen in the post-Enlightenment (≈1600-1800+), postmodern (today) hyper-critics who gleefully make too much of unanswered questions. Both extremes place unreasonably heavy demands on documents that are two thousand years old (at least), before the Gutenberg press was invented in the mid-1400s.

I urge a more balanced and realistic approach to the authority and inspiration and inerrancy of Scripture. For salvation and faith in Christ and discipleship in him, the Bible is absolutely inerrant and inspired and authoritative. On incidental matters and history, it is highly reliable and accurate (e.g. Jerusalem is in the south and Galilee is in the north; ancient civilizations like Assyria, Egypt, and Babylon really existed and struggled with and influenced ancient Israel; Baal really was a pagan deity; Rome dominated first-century Israel, and thousands of other examples). So let’s learn deep, life-changing truths from Scripture and apply them to our lives. Let’s be confident in Scripture in its historical and cultural data. But let’s not place heavy, anachronistic, and modern demands on it. And our faith must not snap in two when tiny, nonessential details don’t quite add up.

‘Total’ Inerrancy and Infallibility or Just Infallibility? (my high view of Scripture and an overview of the Battle for the Bible)

The Battle for the Bible is an American issue. I encourage all Christians outside of America not to get entangled in it.

Recommendations

See these posts in a fifteen-part series on the reliability of the Gospels:

13. Are There Contradictions in the Gospels?

14. Similarities among John’s Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels (celebrate the countless numbers of similarities in the arc of the storyline!)

15. The Historical Reliability of the Gospels: Conclusion (start here for summaries of each part with links back to them)

SOURCES

For the bibliographical data, click on this link and scroll down to the very bottom.

Mark 2