Note: Before we look at today’s post I want to share an article by apologist J. Warner Wallace who wrote “Rules to Evaluate Alleged Bible Contradictions and Difficulties (Free Bible Insert)” two years ago but I only recent discovered it through Twitter. I think they are complimentary with our post, “How to Handle Bible Contradictions.” I appreciate detective Wallace sharing a lot of our posts refuting Bible contradictions.

For today’s post we will tackle the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible asked: When David fled to Nob, what was the priest’s name?

Here are the two answers which the skeptic believes shows a Bible contradiction:

Ahimelech

“Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest; and Ahimelech came trembling to meet David and said to him, “Why are you alone and no one with you?”” (1 Samuel 21:1)

Abiathar

“And He *said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions became hungry; 26 how he entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the consecrated bread, which is not lawful for anyone to eat except the priests, and he also gave it to those who were with him?”” (Mark 2:25-26)

(All Scriptural quotation comes from the New American Standard Bible)

Here’s a closer look at whether or not there is a contradiction:

When dealing with skeptics’ claim of Bible contradictions it seems one can never be reminded enough of what exactly is a contradiction. A contradiction occurs when two or more claims conflict with one another so that they cannot simultaneously be true in the same sense and at the same time. To put it another way, a Bible contradiction exists when there are claims within the Bible that are mutually exclusive in the same sense and at the same time. A little bit of context might be important for readers. Both Mark 2:25-26 and 1 Samuel 21:1 are referring to an event in which David before he became the second king of Israel was a wanted fugitive sought by King Saul. David here went to a town called Nob in which David sought permission to eat the consecrated bread. King Saul then found out, got upset and killed the priests for helping David and only Abiathar escaping with his life. 1 Samuel 21:1 is part of the narrative account of what happened while in Mark 2:25-26 took place a thousand years later in which Jesus is invoking the event to make a point to His contemporary Jewish religious critics who didn’t like how his disciples ate the head of grain during the Sabbath. There is a solution that some Christians have offered but I don’t think is the best option according to the context. Some have proposed that Ahimelech and Abiathar are two different names of the same person. This is unlikely because in 1 Samuel 22:20 it identifies Abiathar as the son of Ahimelech: “But one son of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David.” Other interpretation must be sought instead as solution to this alleged Bible contradiction. Attention to details matter in showing that there is not a contradiction between 1 Samuel 21:1 and Mark 2:25-26. Recall the question the Skeptic Annotated Bible is asking: When David fled to Nob, what was the priest’s name? 1 Samuel 21:1 notes that it was Ahimelech who offered the bread to David. Mark 2:25-26 does not contradict nor conflict with the proposition that it was Ahimelech who gave the bread to David. Mark 2:26 just assert that the time period of when this took place was “in the time of Abiathar the high priest.“ The events certainly did take place during Abiathar’s lifetime because Abiathar was the only one who escaped King Saul’s massacre (1 Samuel 22:20) and reported it to David. So to speak of this occuring during the time of Abiathar is factually correct. Also to call Abiathar as the high priest in terms of the context of the original language is not problematic. The Greek word for “high priest” in Mark 2:26 is ἀρχιερέως. ἀρχιερέως in the New Testament at times can also mean other priests besides the high priest in terms of the singular office at the Temple of Jerusalem. Note how both Mark 8:31 and Mark 14:1 use the plural form of ἀρχιερέως. This can only make sense if there are such shade of meaning of “high priests” other than the singular office of High Priest. Some might object and say that during Jesus’ days there were uniquely two high priests of Annas and Caiphas because of the political situation under the Roman empire (see here for more information). But even much later during the church age we still see “high priests” being a term that is used in places such as Acts 22:30; Acts 23:14. Also Acts 4:6 establishes that the term ἀρχιερέως comprises not only the one actually holding the high priestly office, but also the members of the families of high priests and former high priests: “and Annas the high priest was there, and Caiaphas and John and Alexander, and all who were of high-priestly descent.“ Thus if the term ἀρχιερέως can refer to the family members of the one holding the singular official office of high priest we thus have no problem with the event being described as taking place “in the time of Abiathar the high priest.” That would actually be correct. Up to this point we already have demonstrated there is not a contradiction but we want to ask another question in order to further reinforce the point that there is not a contradiction here: Why is it that Jesus would focus on the individual Abiathar rather than Ahimelech when it was Ahimelech who gave David the bread? In the Bible Abiathar is actually mentioned more than Ahimelech. If Abiathar is mentioned more than Ahimelech it might make sense to refer to the event as during the time of Abiathar. In 1 Kings 2:27 we learn that later Abiathar is dismissed from being the high priest by King Solomon (David’s Son): “So Solomon dismissed Abiathar from being priest to the Lord, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord, which He had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.” Note the reason stated is that it is to fullfill prophecies God has given to Abiathar’s forefather Eli that Eli’s family priesthood and prominence would end. After Abiathar we would see the rise of Zadok’s lineage in the priesthood. For the Jews familiar with their history Jesus saying “in the time of Abiathar the high priest” would indicate that He was talking about an event of a previous priesthood “dynasty” than the current dynasty. Thus Jesus taking this took place “in the time of Abiathar the high priest” is not denying that it was Ahimelech who gave David the bread. I must point out here that there is a lesson here of the danger of skeptics claiming there is a Bible contradiction here without understanding the background and cultural/religious situation and norms. It is always dangerous for anyone to know so little in a given area and then making a big claim such as there is a contradiction in that respective area of knowledge or study. Yet that’s what is going on with the Skeptic Annotated Bible in this instance.