Did Jesus make a mistake naming the high priest?

Did Jesus make a mistake naming the high priest?

Who was high priest when David went into the House of GOD and ate the consecrated bread?

• Abiathar (Mark 2:26)
• Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar (I Samuel 1:1; 22:20)

In the gospel of Mark, when Jesus is referring to David eating the shewbread, Jesus refers to Abiathar the high priest. 

Mark 2: 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

However, when we look at this story in the OT, the story that Jesus refers to is found in 1 Samuel 21, we see that Abiathar was not the high priest at the time, rather it was his father Ahimelech who was the high priest. 

1 Samuel 21:1 Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee?

It should not go unmentioned that 1 Samuel 21:1 does not actually refer to Ahimelech as High priest, rather simply as priest. It is at least plausible that while Ahimelech was the father of Abiathar, that it was the son who was the high priest at this time and thus Jesus accurately referred to Abiathar as High Priest. We should also note that Jesus was not challenged on his reference by the Pharisees.  It should though be further noted that the high priest is not always called the high priest but often only priest, 1 Samuel never uses the term high priest. While I personally would not be an advocate of this particular argument,  it should not simply be dismissed as if correct it most certainly explains the supposed contradiction.  

We know that Ahimelech was the father of Abiathar from 1 Samuel 22

1 Samuel 22:20 And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.

Neither Matthew nor Luke include the reference to the high priest in their own versions of this particular story. 

Matthew 12:4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? 

Luke 6:4 How he went into the house of God, and did take and eat the shewbread, and gave also to them that were with him; which it is not lawful to eat but for the priests alone? 

 

As most scholars today believe that Mark was written first, they assert that Matthew and Luke, who utilised Mark, but independently of one other, both edited the Marcan narrative and removed this “error” from their own. Obviously we would then have to ask why they both chose to remove any mention of the high priest rather than “correcting” the narrative by replacing Abiathar with his father Ahimelech? This could be explained by positing that by the time Matthew and Luke wrote their Gospels the tradition of the name Abiathar was too ingrained and thus the better option, and least controversial would be a path of least resistance which would mean the removal of the mention of the high priest was deemed easier and less problematic than changing the name. This of course is mere speculation. There is no evidence to support it. It also relies on Marcan priority, something that, although I won’t delve into here and now, I believe is itself problematic. 

The fact that this is deemed an error actually shows a reliability of textual transmission.  While Mark records Abiathar, this has been faithful transmitted throughout the history. It would have been easy for a scribe, believing this to be an error, to have “corrected” this error and changed their copy of the Gospel of Mark from Abiathar to Ahimelech, yet we do not find this occurring. 

The Latin also agrees with the Greek in its reading of Abiathar. 

Mark 2:26 quomodo introiit in domum Dei sub Abiathar principe sacerdotum et panes propositionis manducavit quos non licet manducare nisi sacerdotibus et dedit eis qui cum eo erant

How he went into the house of God, under Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave to them who were with him?  Latin Vulgate. 

The Wycliffe Bible, the English translation of the Latin which was started by John Wycliff in 1394, reads Abiathar 

Mark 2:26 Hou he wente in to the hous of God, vndur Abiathar, prince of prestis, and eete looues of proposicioun, which it was not leeueful to ete, but to preestis aloone, and he yaf to hem that weren with hym. Wycliffe Bible. 

This is nearly 150 years before any English translation from the Greek. 

This demonstrates that despite the difficulty of this reading scribes did not alter the text in an attempt to correct an error. Could it be that the meaning of the reading Abiathar was understood in antiquity without question?  

This supposed error that Shabir has included, is often used by those who would discredit the Bible, to demonstrate that not only does the Bible have errors, but that Jesus himself made mistakes. Some do attribute this apparent mistake to Mark or later copyists of the Gospel of Mark.

It is this particular “contradiction” that started Bart Ehrman’s move away from the belief of biblical inerrancy. He cites this in his book, Misquoting Jesus. While completing a course on the gospel of Mark, Bart looked at the supposed error tried to reconcile it. He gave a convoluted answer that mainly revolved around Jesus not referring to when Abiathar was high priest but rather that particular section of the text where Abiathar is a main character. To this answer his professor simply asked him ….”What if Mark was wrong? “

He writes: 

“A turning point came in my second semester, in a course I was taking with a much revered and pious professor named Cullen Story. The course was on the exegesis of the Gospel of Mark, at the time (and still) my favorite Gospel. For this course we needed to be able to read
the Gospel of Mark completely in Greek (I memorized the entire
Greek vocabulary of the Gospel the week before the semester began);
we were to keep an exegetical notebook on our reflections on the interpretation of key passages; we discussed problems in the interpretation of the text; and we had to write a final term paper on an interpretive crux of our own choosing. I chose a passage in Mark 2, where Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees because his disciples had been walking through a grain field, eating the grain on the Sabbath. Jesus wants to show the Pharisees that “Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath” and so reminds them of what the
great King David had done when he and his men were hungry, how they went into the Temple “when Abiathar was the high priest” and ate the show bread, which was only for the priests to eat. One of the well­known problems of the passage is that when one looks at the Old
Testament passage that Jesus is citing (1 Sam. 21:1­6), it turns out that
David did this not when Abiathar was the high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was. In other words, this is one of those passages that have been pointed to in order to show that the Bible is not inerrant at all but contains mistakes. In my paper for Professor Story, I developed a long and compli­ cated argument to the effect that even though Mark indicates this happened “when Abiathar was the high priest,” it doesn’t really mean
that Abiathar was the high priest, but that the event took place in the
part of the scriptural text that has Abiathar as one of the main characters. My argument was based on the meaning of the Greek words in­ volved and was a bit convoluted. I was pretty sure Professor Story would appreciate the argument, since I knew him as a good Christian scholar who obviously (like me) would never think there could be anything like a genuine error in the Bible. But at the end of my paper he made a simple one­line comment that for some reason went straight through me. He wrote: “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.” I
started thinking about it, considering all the work I had put into the paper, realizing that I had had to do some pretty fancy exegetical foot­ work to get around the problem, and that my solution was in fact a bit of a stretch. I finally concluded, “Hmm … maybe Mark did make a
mistake.”
Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus pages 8-9 

 

Bart acknowledges that this is where the floodgates opened, his view of scripture was changed forever. 

“Once I made that admission, the floodgates opened. For if there could be one little, picayune mistake in Mark 2, maybe there could be mistakes in other places as well. Maybe, when Jesus says later in Mark 4 that the mustard seed is “the smallest of all seeds on the earth,” maybe I don’t need to come up with a fancy explanation for how the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds when I know full well it isn’t. And maybe these “mistakes” apply to bigger issues. Maybe when Mark says that Jesus was crucified the day after the Passover meal was eaten (Mark 14:12; 15:25) and John says he died the day before it was eaten (John 19:14)—maybe that is a genuine difference.
Bart Ehrman Misquoting Jesus pages 9-10 

 

Bart has now slipped far beyond simply questioning the inerrancy of the biblical texts, the slope that Bart started upon when he had accepted as an answer that “Mark was wrong”, has led him all the way to agnosticism at the least. 

 

But shouldn’t we also ask the question, what if Mark was right? What if Mark recorded the words of Jesus accurately just as Jesus had uttered them? What if there was a specific reason that Jesus referred to Abiather? What if all we have to do is understand why Jesus referred to Abiathar rather than his father Ahimelech?  What if there is an answer that doesn’t involve having to reject scripture as being inerrant? What if Bart was actually on the right path in the first place? Maybe Bart would not have fallen so far, or at all. 

 

Got questions posits 3 possible solutions for this, the first and 2nd options are both incorrect. The third option is along the correct lines, although there is much more to the answer than what GotQuestions has given. 

1) Since Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech (2 Samuel 8:17), it is possible that both men took part in high priestly duties. We see a similar arrangement in the time of Eli, when Eli’s sons seemed to have shared his duties (1 Samuel 4:4); and in the time of Christ, when Annas and his son-in-law Caiaphas both served in the role of high priest (Luke 3:2; John 18:13).

2) Abiathar was more closely associated with David than Ahimelech was. Abiathar was present when David came to the tabernacle, and he was the sole survivor of Doeg the Edomite’s slaughter of the priests of Nob (1 Samuel 22:18–20). Abiathar immediately showed his loyalty to David: he brought the ephod to David and later oversaw the transport of the ark of the covenant to David and was a long-time high priest during David’s reign (1 Samuel 23:6–9; 2 Samuel 15:29).

3) Abiathar, being present in Nob when David visited the tabernacle, is called the “high priest” in anticipation of his future title. We often do this very type of thing; for example, we may speak familiarly of “President Eisenhower” giving the order to invade Normandy on D-Day, although D-Day was almost nine years before Eisenhower was inaugurated President.
Why does Jesus call Abiathar the high priest in Mark 2:26, when 1 Samuel 21 indicates it was Ahimelech? | GotQuestions.org

 

However, when we correctly analyse the text itself we will see that there is in fact, NO problem whatsoever. Jesus was not incorrect in his naming Abiathar at all and neither was Marks use of Abiathar. The problem is not with the text itself but with the understanding of the text. 

So let’s have a look at the text. 

Jesus very clearly says IN THE DAYS OF Abiathar the high priest as this reads in the KJV 

Mark 2: 26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

He does NOT say WHEN Abiathar was high priest or that it was Abiathar who gave David the shewbread, this is all read into the text by those who are misunderstanding or even deliberately trying to misrepresent the intent of Jesus’ use of Abiathar.  

This is noted by John Gill in his commentary on this verse: 

“and the evangelist rightly says, that this affair was in the days of Abiathar: but be it that he intends the son, what has been before observed is a sufficient solution of this difficulty; for the evangelist does not say that Abiathar was high priest, when David came and eat the showbread; he only says, “it was in the days of Abiathar the high priest”: for certain it is, that this happened in his days; and as certain, that he was an high priest; and Mark might with great propriety call him so, though he was not strictly one, till after this business was over:”
John Gill exposition of the entire Bible. (Mark 2:26) 

 

Some modern translations do read when Abiathar was high Priest 

Mark 2:26 He went into the house of God (during the days when Abiathar was high priest) and broke the law by eating the sacred loaves of bread that only the priests are allowed to eat. He also gave some to his companions.” NLT

Mark 2:26 During the high priesthood of Abiathar, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which was lawful only for the priests. And he gave some to his companions as well.” BSB 

Mark 2:26 How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which it is not lawful to eat save for the priests, and gave also to them that were with him? ERV 

Mark 2:26 how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the sacred bread, which is against the law for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to his companions?” NET Bible

The Douay-Rheims Bible also reads as such. 

Mark 2:26 How he went into the house of God, under Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the loaves of proposition, which was not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave to them who were with him? Douay-Rheims

However, all of these translations are simply incorrect in their rendering of the Greek. 

The Greek word translated as in the days of is ἐπὶ epi. This is a preposition.  The exact meaning of the word is determined by the context in which the word is found. 

Now, if we look at the Strongs concordance (I am using BibleHub for the purpose of this demonstration), what we will see is that when epi is used with the genitive of a person, then it refers to their lifetime (in the days of), not actually any specific time, only during the lifetime of that person .

Epi = II. of Time when; with the genitive of a person in the time or age of a man (in the days of); at the time when an office was held by one; under the administration of (cf. Winers Grammar, 375 (352); Buttmann, 336 (289)): Mark 2:26; Luke 3:2; Luke 4:2; Acts 11:28;

Abiathar in Mark 2:26 is in the genitive masculine singular form  Ἀβιαθὰρ

 

We see many other modern translations reading in such a way: 

Mark 2:26 In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.” NIV 

Mark 2:26 How was it that he went into the House of God during the lifetime of Abiathar the high priest and ate the Bread of the Presence, which was not lawful for anyone but the priests to eat, and gave some of it to his companions?” ISV 

 

 

All English Bibles prior to the KJV translated from the Greek (not Latin) read similar to the KJV

 

Mark 2:26 How he went into the housse of God in the dayes of Abiathar ye hye preste and dyd eate ye halowed loves which is not laufull to eate but for ye prestes only: and gave also to the which were with him? Tyndale Bible 1531

Mark 2:26 how he wente in to the house of God in the tyme of Abiathar the hye prest, and ate the shewbreds (which was laufull for no man to eate, but for the prestes) and he gaue them vnto him, and to them that were with him? Coverdale Bible 1535

Mark 2:26 Howe he went into the house of God in the dayes of Abiathar the hye prieste, and dyd eate the halowed loues, which is not lawfull to eate, but for the priestes onely: and gaue also to them, whiche were with hym? Matthew Bible 1537

Mark 2:26 How he went into the house of God in the dayes of Abiathar the hye Preast, and dyd eate the shewbread, (whych is not lawfull to eate, but for the Prestes onely) & gaue also to them whych were wyth hym? Great Bible 1539

Mark 2:26 Howe he went into the house of God, in the daies of Abiathar the hie Priest, and did eat the shewe bread, which were not lawfull to eate, but for the Priests, and gaue also to them which were with him? Geneva Bible 1560

Mark 2:26 Howe he went into the house of God [in the dayes] of Abiathar the hye prieste, and dyd eate the shewe bread, which is not lawfull to eate, but for the priestes, and gaue also to them which were with hym? Bishops Bible 1568 

 

We can see the same understanding in other places such as Acts 11:28 

Acts 11:28 And there stood up one of them named Agabus, and signified by the spirit that there should be great dearth throughout all the world: which came to pass in the days of Claudius Caesar. 

In the days of being translated from the Greek ἐπὶ epi:

Claudius is again in the genitive masculine singular form Κλαυδίου.

Again some modern versions do translate this as being specifically a reference to when Claudius was Caesar and not simply in his lifetime. 

Acts 11:28 One of them, named Agabus, stood up and through the Spirit predicted that a severe famine would spread over the entire Roman world. (This happened during the reign of Claudius.) NIV 

Acts 11:28 One of them, named Agabus, got up and predicted by the Spirit that a severe famine was about to come over the whole inhabited world. (This took place during the reign of Claudius.) NET Bible 

However, this is purely inference and assumption.

The word Caesar is not actually present in the Greek utilised by most of the modern versions: 

ἀναστὰς δὲ εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν ὀνόματι Ἄγαβος ἐσήμαινεν / ἐσήμανεν διὰ τοῦ πνεύματος λιμὸν μεγάλην μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι ἐφ’ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην· ἥτις ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου. NA27/UBS4

 

Therefore, if we utilise this Greek, instead of the Greek that underlies the KJV then it simply states in the days of Claudius,  it would now be disingenuous to force the reading to mean specifically when Claudius was Caesar (during the reign of Claudius) as the text does not refer to Claudius Caesar only Claudius and there is no reference to the reign of Claudius. If we understood ἐπὶ epi to have to mean “when”, then it would actually read “when Claudius”. This makes no sense. Thus anyone asserting this must refer to when Claudius was Caesar has to combine the reading of modern versions such as the NIV and NET Bibles with the reading of the Greek that underlies the KJV, which does include Caesar: 

ἀναστὰς δὲ εἷς ἐξ αὐτῶν ὀνόματι Ἅγαβος, ἐσήμανε διὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος λιμὸν μέγαν μέλλειν ἔσεσθαι ἐφ’ ὅλην τὴν οἰκουμένην· ὅστις καὶ ἐγένετο ἐπὶ Κλαυδίου Καίσαρος. Beza 5th Edition 

If we take the meaning of ἐπὶ epi as being in the days of and then utilise the NA27/UBS4 text we get  “in the days of Claudius”, which is the correct meaning of the verse. 

 

The event of the great dearth stated by Agabus happened in the days of Claudius Caesar. It does not give any other details of when this happened, only that it happened during his days, meaning his lifetime.  No specifics are given here. 

 

Further evidence for this understanding can be found in Matthew 1:11 where we see epi utilised with the Greek τῆς tēs, which is the definitive article, μετοικεσίας metoikesias which here means to carry away, deport, change of abode, and Βαβυλῶνος. Babylōnos, Babylon, all of which are in the genitive female singular form. 

Matthew 1:11 And Josias begat Jechonias and his brethren, about the time they were carried away to Babylon:

What we see is this being a reference to around the time of an event. The event of the Babylonian exile is used here only to give a general time frame. 

 

Jesus refers to Abiathar as high priest because he became high priest after the death of his father who was Ahimelech,  who was killed by Saul, along with the other priests of his family, for the said event of giving David the shewbread and conspiring against him. Jesus referring to Abiathar as the high priest does not mean Jesus was referring to when Abiathar was high priest but the days of Abiathar who was high priest, high priest is simply a title given to him based on the fact that he did serve as the high priest. This kind of language to refer to someone who has held a position is still used today as GotQuestions explained in option 3.

 

Of course, we also need to understand why Jesus mentioned Abiathar and not Ahimelech. 

As already explained Jesus referred to the days of, the lifetime, of Abiathar, which is when the event happened (not when Abiathar was high priest).

For this we need to understand the story of David and the shewbread in a little more detail. 

Saul had accused Ahimelech of conspiring against him for giving David the shewbread and also the sword of Goliath (who David had killed) 

1 Samuel 22:13Then Saul said to him, “Why have you conspired against me, you and the son of Jesse, in that you have given him bread and a sword, and have inquired of God for him, that he should rise against me, to lie in wait, as it is this day?”

Saul had stated that he was going to kill Ahimelech and ALL of his fathers house. 

1 Samuel 22:16And the king said, “You shall surely die, Ahimelech, you and all your father’s house!”

 

This would have included his son Abiathar. Saul did indeed kill all the priests including Ahimelech. However, Abiathar survived the killing of the priests by Saul, he was the only priest to do so, and fled to David and was then protected by David.

David told him that it was his fault that Abiathars fathers house had been killed and that Abiathar was safe with David. 

 1 Samuel 2:22  So David said to Abiathar, “I knew that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. I have caused the death of all the persons of your father’s [c]house.23 Stay with me; do not fear. For he who seeks my life seeks your life, but with me you shall be safe.

Jesus didn’t get the high priest wrong. He specifically mentioned Abiathar because Abiathar survived the persecution and later became high priest under David when David became king. Abiathar was high priest during the reign of King David who it was that was given the shewbread being referenced by Jesus. Jesus didn’t want to simply refer to the specific incident of the shewbread being eaten by David and his men,  but rather Jesus was drawing attention to the full story that surrounded the incident, the context of the shrewbread being given to David,  which included the events that happened after the giving of the shewbread, which included the killing of the priests, David becoming King despite doing what was supposedly unlawful for him to do, and Abiathar becoming high priest. It is the complete story that Jesus wishes to draw their attention to. Because it is the complete story that supports what Jesus is actually arguing for (which is actually mercy over the law). This was better done referring to the one priest that survived the incident expounding the story beyond the death of Ahimelech and further highlighting the use of in the days of (the lifetime of) Abiathar. 

Here I will cite a portion of my writing “Did Jesus break the Sabbath?”, because it is actually vital to understand the point that Jesus was actually making in his mention of David and the shewbread. Jesus was making a specific argument against the Pharisees, unless this argument is fully understood the importance of the reference to Abiathar rather than Ahimelech may well be missed. (I would suggest reading my full writing on this which can be found on my website, link address will be under the quotation. 

“Jesus in his rebuttal to the Pharisees referred to the story of David and his men eating the shewbread that was not legal for them to eat.

Matthew 12:3 But he said unto them, Have ye not read what David did, when he was an hungred, and they that were with him; 4 How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the shewbread, which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests?

The law regarding the shewbread is found back in Exodus

Exodus 25: 23Thou shalt also make a table of shittim wood: two cubits shall be the length thereof, and a cubit the breadth thereof, and a cubit and a half the height thereof. 24And thou shalt overlay it with pure gold, and make thereto a crown of gold round about. 25And thou shalt make unto it a border of an hand breadth round about, and thou shalt make a golden crown to the border thereof round about. 26And thou shalt make for it four rings of gold, and put the rings in the four corners that are on the four feet thereof. 27Over against the border shall the rings be for places of the staves to bear the table. 28And thou shalt make the staves of shittim wood, and overlay them with gold, that the table may be borne with them. 29And thou shalt make the dishes thereof, and spoons thereof, and covers thereof, and bowls thereof, to cover withal: of pure gold shalt thou make them. 30And thou shalt set upon the table shewbread before me alway.

The shewbread was only for the sons of Aaron.

Leviticus 24: 5And thou shalt take fine flour, and bake twelve cakes thereof: two tenth deals shall be in one cake. 6 And thou shalt set them in two rows, six on a row, upon the pure table before the LORD. 7 And thou shalt put pure frankincense upon each row, that it may be on the bread for a memorial, even an offering made by fire unto the LORD. 8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant. 9 And it shall be Aaron’s and his sons’; and they shall eat it in the holy place: for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire by a perpetual statute.

Nobody else was lawfully allowed to eat the shewbread. However, we see that David and his men were given this bread to eat when the fled from King Saul who sought to kill him.

1 Samuel 21:1Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? 2And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. 3Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. 4And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. 5And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. 6So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away. 7Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul. 8And David said unto Ahimelech, And is there not here under thine hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king’s business required haste. 9And the priest said, The sword of Goliath the Philistine, whom thou slewest in the valley of Elah, behold, it is here wrapped in a cloth behind the ephod: if thou wilt take that, take it: for there is no other save that here. And David said, There is none like that; give it me.

Jesus used the account of David and the shewbread to highlight the hypocrisy of the Pharisees. The Pharisees had not condemned David or the priests for doing what was actually unlawful to do when David and his men were in need of food. This was in fact an act of mercy towards David by Ahimelech the priest,  yet they condemned the disciples. 

 

Jesus showing that it was through mercy, that Ahimelech the priest gave David which was not legal rather than their sacrifices which are legal that is more preferable. It is kindness and humanity that is required above the acts of the law. The whole law hangs on the two commands, and thus Loving your neighbour will always be superior. Loving your neighbour fulfills the law. “
https://www.followintruth.com/did-jesus-break-the-sabbath

 

If you liked this study please subscribe here

You can buy my books on Amazon there is a link here 

Help me keep this site free for all. Join our Patreon membershiphere