High Priest Abiathar? - Supposed Biblical Contradiction #28

The Biblical scholar Bart Ehrman said the first thing that made him question the validity of the Bible was an issue Mark 2. We look into that issue here and see if there is any problem.

Don't forget to help us create more videos! We need your support:

Sources:

J. R. Edwards - The Gospel According to Mark

Edward Andrews - Misrepresenting Jesus

Bart Ehrman - Misquoting Jesus

Maurice Casey - Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel

#NewTestament #JesusChrist #History

[utopiabuster]

Your "Supposed Bible Contradiction" is one of the best apologetics series on YouTube.

Thanks and God Bless

[austinapologetics]

I like what the YouTuber Testify said regarding Ehrman and these contradictions are errors. He said something along the lines that looking at a myriad of interpretations and explanations and taking the most uncharitable one, even when it is less plausible than others, and then saying that it's an irreconcilable difference isn't scholarship.

[deeds]

in a weird way, I love to hear what people consider bible contradictions because it makes me research them and grow in faith

[CaptainBars]

If I made a reference to "when King David slew Goliath, " my statement would not be considered incorrect even though David was not yet King at that time. So, in the same way, referring to an event that happened "in the days of Abiathar the High Priest" would not be inaccurate even though the man hadn't become High Priest just yet. This is one of the easiest claimed "contradictions" to refute and yet the enemies of Christ still push it. They must be desperate.

[RottenDoctorGonzo]

One I heard: "President Obama had lots of friends as a schoolboy in the '60s."

[maranatapalle]

I love that Ehrman makes the same "mistake" as Jesus - in the very text where he criticizes Jesus...

[thomasdillon]

Great job showing the context of Jesus’ reference. Also, Ehimelech, who gave the show bread to David had a grandson who was also named Ehimelech (the son of Abiathar) who became high priest as well. Jesus referencing Abiathar the high priest made better sense given the context.

[jonhilderbrand]

1. Don't you dare hold me to my own standards!
2. Never muddy the waters with logic!
Excellent video, Michael! I am so grateful for you and the time and effort I know you put into your work. You are prayed for in this house!

[Flosseveryday]

His own writing was used against his argument. Wow. I didn’t see that coming!

[Josdamale]

"επί Αβιάθαρ αρχιερέως" means "at the time of Abiathar the highpriest" and not "when Abiathar was the highpriest".

[susannah]

To find the answer to this we need to go back to the book of laws and ordinances given to Moses. Numbers 8:24-26. Upon reading this it is possible to have a High Priest with previous High Priest in service at the same time.

[RickOnTheDrums]

"This supposed contradiction can be resolved." I always love that ending tagline.

[BatMite]

Ehrman is a classic example of someone who was looking for a reason not to believe and took the easy way out.

[moosechuckle]

I would just like to tell you, your interview with the the married couple who spoke about sex and the Bible, was terrific. My wife grew up in church, and their view of sex and what they taught, combine with some other abuse issues she went through, became a real burden in our physical life.

We’ve been married for 17 years, and until about 5 years ago, the physical aspect of our marriage was clouded her feeling dirty, wrong, and anger at times.

Although we have made it through our difficulties, your video and those two people, I believe, will help so many overcome those issues.

Thank you for what you do, and tackling the tough issues.

[rolandovelasquez]

I love this quote from William Lane Craig on Bart Ehrman.

"I lost all respect for Bart Ehrman frankly, when I saw him in public debate, how he deliberately and deceptively tries to mislead laymen in this (truth or fallacy of the resurrection of Jesus Christ & etc.)..."
William Lane Craig

The two key words here are "deliberately" and "deceptively". I too have seen him do the same. He knows what he's doing.

[Saint_nobody]

Too much of my feed is filled with political banter. My fault I clearly acknowledge. Yet here I give thanks for something of greater importance to drop some time with. Thank you.

[yoadrian]

The problem is the "Fundamentalist" interpretation of the Bible which Ehrman believed in. It states, in part, that if one part of the Bible is wrong then all of it is wrong. Ehrman is as much a fundamentalist in his unbelief as he was in his beliefs.

[RealCaptainAwesome]

I much prefer this content to other videos you have posted recently.

[samuelflores]

Context Context Context! Context is always Key! God Bless!

[BornAgainRN]

Another way to resolve this, which actually builds on this explanation, is that Jesus was using name conflation between Abiathar and Ahimelech. Since Abiathar was more well-known than Ahimelech for keeping the law, Jesus may have purposely used the former high priests name, even though Ahimelech was actually high priest.

This would’ve been similar to Matthew 23:35 when Jesus rebukes the Pharisees for being like their spiritual forefathers who had murdered all of the prophets since the foundation of the world “from Abel to Zechariah, the son of Berechiah.” The minor prophet, Zechariah the son of Berechiah, was not the last chronological prophet murdered. That would be John the Baptist. Nor were the Pharisees responsible for the murder of Abel. Rather, Jesus is also using name conflation by referencing the patronym of one prophet (the son Berechiah) and conflating him with the method of martyrdom of another prophet of the same name (the son of Jehoiada). And since the son of Jehoiada was not the last chronological prophet of the Hebrew Bible (that would be Urriah), nor was he the last prophet murdered chronologically (that would be John the Baptist), then Jesus is speaking canonically by referencing the last canonical martyred prophet which would be the son of Jehoiada.

Jesus “may” be doing the same thing in Mark 2:26, by using the name of the more well-known and respected and obedient high priest, with the name of the actual high priest who was reigning during that time.