Welcome to “Ehrman Errs,” a blog series devoted to using our conversational AI to refute each alleged biblical contradiction that is posed in the article on Bart Ehrman’s website: 50 Contradictions in the Bible: The Biggest, Most Shocking Differences.
Today’s alleged contradiction:
#20 – The High Priest Abiathar in Mark
The High Priest Abiathar in Mark 2:26 Another biblical mistake comes from Mark 2:26, where Jesus references an event from 1 Samuel 21:1-6. In Mark’s account, Jesus recalls how David, in need of food, entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” The problem lies in that, according to 1 Samuel, the high priest at the time of this event was Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father. Abiathar became high priest later, following Ahimelech’s death. This discrepancy has prompted much scholarly debate. However, most critical scholars, unburdened by the radical understanding of inerrancy, see it as a simple error or misattribution by the author of Mark.
How Does Ehrman Err?
When we examine the passage in its context, both historically and grammatically, it becomes clear that Mark 2:26 does not contain an error at all. Rather, it reflects a common Semitic and idiomatic way of referring to events, which is entirely consistent with ancient usage and the Old Testament record.
1. Let’s look carefully at the relevant texts:
“How he entered the house of God, in the time of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those who were with him” (Mark 2:26, ESV).
Compare that to:
“Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech came to meet David trembling and said to him, ‘Why are you alone, and no one with you?’” (1 Samuel 21:1, ESV).
At first glance, it seems Mark has confused Abiathar and Ahimelech — but this is only a surface-level reading. There are at least three strong, historically and linguistically grounded explanations that dissolve any supposed contradiction:
1. “In the Time of Abiathar” Is a Common Hebraism
As GotQuestions.org explains (“Why does Jesus call Abiathar the high priest in Mark 2:26?”), Mark’s phrase can mean “in the days of Abiathar the high priest” — a way of situating an event in a general historical period rather than identifying the specific officeholder at that exact moment.
The Greek phrase ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως (epi Abiathar archiereōs) is idiomatic, meaning “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.”
As Sam Shamoun observes in 101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible Pt. 4:
“Jesus states that the event happened ‘in the days of Abiathar the high priest,’ and yet we know from 1 Samuel that Abiathar was not actually the high priest at that time; it was his father, Ahimelech. If we were to introduce an anecdote by saying, ‘When King David was a shepherd boy…,’ it would not be incorrect, even though David was not king at that time.”
Similarly, Tabletalk Magazine’s commentary on this passage notes that Jesus is referencing a well-known period of Israel’s history recognizable by the names associated with it — not asserting a chronological error.
2. Abiathar Was Present and Soon to Be High Priest
Abiathar, Ahimelech’s son, was alive and present during the event, and later he became the high priest. After King Saul slaughtered the priests of Nob (1 Sam. 22:20), Abiathar escaped and fled to David:
“But one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David” (1 Sam. 22:20, ESV).
Thus, the incident with the showbread happened during his lifetime and in connection with his family’s priestly service.The people later would naturally associate this period of David’s life — as Jesus’ contemporaries did — with Abiathar, the priest who partnered with David through much of his reign.
So when Jesus says “in the time of Abiathar the high priest,” He is referring to the broader era associated with Abiathar’s priestly service and renown, not pinpointing the exact priest officiating at that precise moment.
3. The Purpose of Jesus’ Reference
In Mark 2, Jesus’ main point is not to give a historical lecture about priestly succession but to show that the law allows mercy over ritual formality. He responds to the Pharisees’ accusation by appealing to David’s precedent: a righteous man in need was not condemned for an action that technically broke a ceremonial law (cf. Hosea 6:6 — “I desire mercy, and not sacrifice”).
Jesus’ use of a well-known story “in the time of Abiathar the high priest” served to remind His hearers of that familiar narrative — not to provide a disputed historical footnote.
4. Scripture’s Inerrancy Remains Intact
This understanding preserves the Bible’s inerrancy perfectly. Scripture affirms,
“The sum of your word is truth, and every one of your righteous rules endures forever” (Psalm 119:160, ESV).
“Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17, ESV).
Therefore, as Christians who trust in God’s Word, we need not assume error where a reasonable linguistic or historical explanation exists.
Summing Up
Jesus’ statement in Mark 2:26 can be faithfully translated as “in the days of Abiathar the high priest.” Abiathar was alive during the event, soon became high priest, and the story was remembered as taking place during his era — not necessarily under his official tenure. The supposed contradiction vanishes under careful reading and historical awareness.
Thus, rather than a “biblical mistake,” this verse demonstrates Jesus’ deep engagement with Israel’s history — and His authority to interpret Scripture properly, as the “Lord of the Sabbath” (Mark 2:28).