David seemingly killed Goliath twice — first with a stone, second with a sword — Daniel failed to count to three, and Jesus misnamed a priest. Skeptics declare these to be "contradictions".

For many years I’ve tested the Bible by referring to scientific literature and proved hundreds of points correct. This result, however is undermined if hundreds of other statements contradict each other.

First, let’s be clear on what a contradiction is.

Two propositions are contradictory when one affirms what the other denies. (Luce 1958) For example:
 

However, when critics call pairs of statements in the Bible "contradictory" they usually don’t claim that one is true. Rather, they usually wish to assert that at least one is false and probably both are false. Most alleged Bible contradictions are really alleged discrepancies/inconsistencies.

Goliath’s cause of death is not a contradiction since skeptics do not claim that one of the two causes of death is true — rather skeptics usually reject the whole story. The accusation the skeptic wishes to make is: "The Bible is inconsistent on Goliath’s death".
 
 

King Nebuchadnezzar decreed that young captives be trained for three years before being presented to him. (Daniel 1:5)
 

This date or time discrepancy has several possible explanations.

For example:
 

Another explanation follows from "And when the Philistines saw..." We’re getting two viewpoints of both armies. From the Israelite viewpoint the stone killed Goliath; from the Philistine viewpoint it was decapitation.
 
 

Some "discrepancies" require deeper analysis.

For example, critics allege that Jesus got wrong the name of a high priest who lived 1,000 years earlier:
 

After that Saul ordered the killing of Ahimelech and all the priests at Nob — 85 deaths. (I Samuel 22:18)

At this stage Abiathar gets his first mention:
 

Some apologists argue that Mark 2:26 "when Abiathar was high priest" should read "in the days of Abiathar the high priest".

Then we could compare it to me saying "England fought two world wars in the days of my grandfather." This does not imply that my grandfather was already a grandfather in 1914. The intent of the statement is not to state when he became a grandfather but to state approximately when the world wars occurred. If my grandfather was born in 1900, became grandfather in 1950 and died 1970 then the world wars occurred "in his days".

Similarly, "in the days of Abiathar the high priest" does not imply he was high priest at the holy bread incident but that it occurred in the lifetime of Abiathar.

The Greek word in Mark 2:26 is epi. Some Bibles render it "when" and others "in the days of". Since the translators are undecided the preceding explanation using "in the days of" is doubtful too.

Others argue that epi in Mark 2:26 is used idiomatically and means "in the passage about Abiathar the high priest". (Douglas et al 1982) This argument is based on similar grammar in Mark 12:26 and Luke 20:37. If correct, then Abiathar was high priest in the written passage, i.e. in I Samuel 21-23, but not necessarily at the start of the passage.

However, there is another explanation which we’ll consider after discussing the Old Testament priesthood.
 
 

The Old Testament only speaks of "priests" never "high priests". Why did Jesus call Abiathar "high priest"?

The Greek word achierus is used about 40 times in the New Testament in reference to the high priest in Jerusalem, and another 60 times in the plural to mean "chief priests" i.e. the Temple hierarchy. Another word, hierus, occurs 30 times and means priest/priests.

If Abiathar was an achierus he was high priest — except no one is called "high priest" in the Old Testament.

Had Jesus said hierus it would imply Abiathar was an ordinary priest. But Jesus said achierus, implying Abiathar was "high priest".

The Jewish priesthood began with Moses’ brother, Aaron. The ordination ceremony of Aaron and two of his sons is in Leviticus 8-9. Although Aaron is not called "high priest" he had greater status and prominence than his sons.

Aaron’s position as leading priest was hereditary. The following table lists the line of descent through two of Aaron’s sons for 10 generations:
 
 

The Levites were assistants to the priests and therefore were sometimes called "priests". Officially, however, the priests and Levites were distinct groups. (Deuteronomy 31:9; I Chronicles 9:2, 10, 14; 23:3, 24-32)

In David’s time Zakok and Abiathar (see table) were joint leading priests. Abiathar, however — we’ll see later — had greater status than Zadok.

Since Abiathar was the leading priest, people in the 1^st century would naturally compare his status to Jerusalem’s high priest and therefore consider Abiathar high priest. The 1^st century historian Josephus, for example, called various Old Testament priests "high priest". (Antiquities V, 11:3; VIII, 1:3; X, 8:6) So does Hebrews 5:1-4; 7:28.

Consider the English term "governor". History books use this English word for officials in the Roman Empire and other long-gone empires. Calling an ancient official "governor" suggests a similarity in status and function to modern governors without implying that ancient empires used the English word.

Similarly with the term achierus: Jesus would be correct in using the term if Abiathar had the equivalent status and role of a 1^st-century high priest.
 
 

The question now is: Was Abiathar the leading priest with the same status and role as a 1^st century high priest?

After the slaughter at Nob, Abiathar used the "ephod" to get instructions from God for David. (I Samuel 23)

This ephod was not the ordinary linen ephod — the linen garment worn by priests and their assistants — but the ephod with a pocket or compartment containing the "Urim and Thummin". (Exodus 28:27-30) These were a form of lot, possibly two small flat stones, opposite sides colored black and white, giving three possible results when thrown — i.e. two white, two black, or one of each. Probably Proverbs alludes to it:
 

Abiathar possessing this ephod after his father’s murder identifies him as leading priest — in 1^st century terminology a high priest.

David offered Abiathar protection and safety. (1 Samuel 22:22-23) The two were friends during David’s fugitive years and then through David’s 40-year kingship. The other leading priest, Zadok, joined David several years after Abiathar.
 

When David became King in Jerusalem Abiathar attended the Ark of the Covenant there, whereas Zadok served 9km away at the Tabernacle at Gibeon. Abiathar’s status therefore seems greater. (II Samuel 15:25-29, 35-36; I Chronicles 15:1-3, 11-15; 16:39)

When King David was old, Abiathar joined in a plot to stop Solomon becoming king (1 Kings 1:5-21) and was removed from the priesthood. (1 Kings 2:26-27).

Before his dismissal Abiathar was senior to Zakok which is implied by:
 

But who was the leading priest (or high priest) about 45 years earlier at the "holy bread" incident at Nob?

The holy-bread incident involved Ahimelech. Abiathar is not mentioned. Who therefore was high priest — father or son?

The answer, if we make a plausible assumption, is:

Sons often inherited their father’s position when the father became too old to function effectively. If this was the case with Ahimelech, Abiathar would have performed his father’s duties and functioned as high priest while Ahimelech was still alive. Abiathar possessing the official linen ephod and wearing it without anyone objecting supports this scenario. After Ahimelech’s death Abiathar continued as high priest for 45 years.

The conclusion from all the above expressed concisely would use Jesus’ phrase — "When Abiathar was high priest…"
 
 

After David became King David, the Old Testament seems to confuse Ahimelech with Abiathar i.e. father with son:
 

Another suggestion is that ancient copyists accidentally transposed the names. It seems unbelievable however that identical copy-errors were made in five places!

The context of all five transpositions is a period of religious/political prosperity. Since Ahimelech (father) and Abiathar (son) had both contributed to David’s success, I suggest the two names were deliberately transposed to produce a play on words (or pun) to emphasize the two men’s role.

Most Hebrew names had meanings and:

The father, Ahimelech, had given David and his hungry men bread, making Ahimelech "father of abundance" i.e. he was "Abiathar".

When in his old age Abiathar (son) turned traitor, the Bible uses his real name because he was no longer "brother of the king" but was again "Father of abundance [or pre-eminence]" — this time pre-eminent in treachery.
 
 

Some apologists argue that both priests had both names – Ahimelech Abiathar (father) and Abiathar Ahimelech (son). Indeed, many Bible characters had two or three names or a change in name. However, to infer extra names solely to explain inconsistency, when there’s no other evidence, seems contrived.

Most alleged Bible inconsistencies are solved, as in the present article, by:
 

1. Background historical material;
2. Making plausible assumptions;
3. Identifying figures of speech such as metaphor, exaggeration, repetition, parenthesis, allegory, pun, etc. If figures of speech are taken literally, the statement in which they occur will be misunderstood and seem false.

Let all the detail we’ve considered not sidetrack us from Jesus’ lesson:

The "holy bread" was renewed every Sabbath and was by law only eaten by priests. Ahimelech, confronted by human need — a famished group of men — put their welfare ahead of the law.

And that’s Jesus’ point — God’s laws are meant to promote human wellbeing but if a situation occurs where this intention is thwarted then the law should be set aside and the rule "Love your neighbor" put first.
 
 

REFERENCES:

Douglas, J.D. et al (eds.) 1982 New Bible Dictionary, Inter-Varsity.

Luce, A.A. 1958 Teach Yourself Logic, English Universities Press, pp 68-70.

Whiston, W. (Translator) 1971 Josephus Complete Works, Kregel.
 
 

My articles in Investigator 113 have several minor errors:

On page 35 the phrase "bank and the lender" should be "bank and the borrower".

In the article The Bible Consistent I wrote, "when King Saul later arrived he questioned Ahimelech, not Abiathar." Actually King Saul did not "arrive" since he sent for Ahimelech and the other priests — they went to King Saul. (II Samuel 22:11)

Perhaps readers noticed that Jesus’ seeming confusion between Ahimelech with Abiathar has a further possible explanation beyond those I explicated in #113.

If I’m correct (pp 23-24) that the names were deliberately transposed in five passages to produce a pun, then Jesus may have done the same. That is in saying "Abiathar", Jesus may have referred to the meaning of the name — "father of abundance" — which would then mean Ahimelech.

To be sure of the best explanation for Jesus’ seeming error we need to know the 1^st-century practice in Galilee when discussing Ahimelech/Abiathar. Did Galileans identify them by the names or the meaning of the names? Lacking this information, however, still leaves us with at least three plausible solutions.

If anyone thinks I wasted too much space on the alleged discrepancy, consider that there’s a website with about 100 pages devoted to it, and it covered less ground than I did in ten!