Mark 2:25f – “Have you never read what David did when he was in need and he and his companions were hungry—2:26 how he entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priest and ate the sacred bread…?”

According to 1 Sam 21:1-6, Ahimelech was high priest at this time.  His son, Abiathar, became high priest shortly afterwards.

The problem is discussed from a sceptical perspective by this blogger.

The ESV Study Bible summarises two of the main approaches to harminisation:

‘The incident with David actually occurred when Ahimelech, not his son Abiathar, was high priest (1 Sam. 21:1). “In the time of Abiathar” could mean: (1) “In the time of Abiathar who later became high priest” (naming Abiathar because he was a more prominent person in the OT narrative, remaining high priest for many years of David’s reign); “In [the Scripture section] of Abiathar, the high priest” (taking Gk. epi plus the genitive to indicate a location in Scripture, as in Mark 12:26). Abiathar, the only son of Ahimelech to survive the slaughter by Doeg (1 Samuel 22), is the best-known high priest in this larger section of 1 Samuel.’

To consider in a little more detail various attempts to account for this apparent discrepancy:-

(a) Some think that Mark is plainly mistaken.  For Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar who moved from conservative evangelicalism to agnosticism, this text was instrumental in undermining his belief in the truthfulness of Scripture.  As a student, he had written an extensive essay defending the accuracy of the text.  His tutor, however, raised the question, “Perhaps Mark simply made a mistake.”  It is remarkable that this had such an effect on Ehrman, given that there are many Christians who would allow for the presence of minor inexactitudes in the Bible while still accepting its overall trustworthiness in matters of faith and practice.  For John Byron, this same text raised similar questions about the Bible’s historical value, although with less devastating effects on his personal faith.

(b) Craig Evans (The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus) follows Mulholland (DJG) in thinking it probable that the Markan account reflects an alternative tradition concerning the two priestly figures:

The major tradition:

‘narrates Abiathar as the son of Ahimelech. Accordingly, the latter is the priest who gave the bread to David and his men. This is the tradition of 1 Sam 21–22.’

According to the minor tradition:

‘Ahimelech (or Abimelech in some manuscripts) is said to be the son of Abiathar, who survives and serves David alongside Zadok (2 Sam 8:17; 1 Chr 18:16; 24:3–31; contrast 1 Kgs 4:4, where it is Abiathar who serves alongside Zadok.’

The Markan account is reflecting the minority tradition at this point.

Obviously, this proposal will be rejected by inerrantists on principle.

(c) Others think that Mark originally wrote ‘Ahimelech’, but this was changed by early copyists to ‘Abiathar’.  But this is  purely speculative.

(d) William Hendriksen proposes the rather desperate expedient of suggesting that both father and son gave the bread to David(!)

(e) According to Cranfield, ‘in the days of Abiathar the High Priest’ need not imply that he was actually High Priest at the time.  He suggests that there may be some confusion between Ahimelech and Abiathar in the OT itself – citing 1 Sam 22:20 with 2 Sam 8:17; 1 Chron 18:16; 24:6 (see (b), above).

(f) Blomberg (Historical Reliability) notes that ‘in the days of’ translates the Gk. word ‘epi‘.  Following John Wenham, he suggests that Mark means, ‘In the passage about Abiathar‘ (Abiathar, mentioned in 1 Sam 22, was the better-known of the two, and note the similar construction in Mk 12:26).  Blomberg has also posted on this question here.

In Hermeneutics, Authority and Canon (p148), Blomberg writes:

‘Ahimelech is certainly the more dominant of the two high priests in the larger context of the latter portion of 1 Samuel, making Wenham’s application to Mark 2:26 extremely plausible. Moreover, in eighteen of the twenty-one Markan uses of the preposition, ἐπί has a local or spatial rather than a temporal sense, rendering the traditional translation (“when Abiathar was high priest”) less likely.’

James Bejon: But why would Jesus mention Abiathar at all, if it was his father Ahimelech who actually gave the bread to David.  Both were descendants of Eli, but this line was under God’s judgment, 1 Sam. 2.27ff.  Eli’s sons Hophni and Phineas were slain in battle.  Phinehas’s grandson Ahimelech/Ahijah was slain by Saul, 1 Sam 22.  Ahimelech’s son Abiathar joined with David and his outcasts as they fled from Saul, 1 Sam 22.2, 20, 1 Kgs 2.26.  Abiathar served as priest along with Zadok, 2 Sam 8.17, 15.24, 35.  All this helps to explain why Jesus would highlight Abiathar in Mk 2 –

‘Like Abiathar, Jesus’ disciples stood at a crossroads in history. They’d been born into a fallen order—a nation on its last legs, complete with an unsanctioned king and a corrupt priesthood (Matt. 3.10ff.). And yet, in their day and age, God had raised up a David-like Messiah whose deeds had won the hearts of the people, and whom Israel’s Saul-like authorities (consequently) envied and despised. As such, the disciples’ call was to follow the lead of Abiathar—to separate themselves from a cursed line and instead align themselves with God’s Messiah. Indeed, that is what the text of Mark 2 is all about. The Israel of Jesus’ day was an old wineskin. A new covenantal order was needed for God’s new wine (Mark 2.21–22), and God had raised up a greater David to inaugurate it. Hence, just as the needs of David’s mission took precedence over the usual sanctuary regulations (Mark 2.23–26), so the needs of Jesus’ mission took precedence over the traditions of the Pharisees. One greater than the Temple was in their midst (Matt. 12.6).’

Bejon continues:

‘Needless to say, the disciples’ decision to follow God’s Messiah would cost them. For Abiathar, life with David meant a life on the run, persecution at the hands of ‘the establishment’, and a share in David’s afflictions (I Kgs. 2.26). And, for the disciples, the situation was little different. Those who hated Jesus (e.g., Saul’s NT namesake) would hate them with equal fervour. The disciples would be given a cross to bear, no place to lay their heads, and a share in their Lord’s afflictions.’

The last of these explanations, especially in the light of Bejon’s explanation, seems the most likely.  The problem is, of course, fairly trivial, except for those who feel the need to defend the inerrancy of the Bible in every detail, and those whose faith is too flimsy to withstand any uncertainty.  There is some indication that Matthew and Luke recognised that there was a problem here, because both Matthew 12:4 and Luke 6:4 drop the offending name (as do some manuscripts of Mark).

See also this, by Ian Paul.