Typology Preserves Biblical Inerrancy Against Ehrman’s Mistake

Bart Ehrman describes why he left the faith in his book Misquoting Jesus (8–9):

A turning point came in my second semester . . . . we had to write a final term paper on an interpretive crux of our own choosing. I chose a passage in Mark 2, where Jesus is confronted by the Pharisees because his disciples had been walking through a grain field, eating the grain on the Sabbath. Jesus wants to show the Pharisees that “Sabbath was made for humans, not humans for the Sabbath” and so reminds them of what the great King David had done when he and his men were hungry, how they went into the Temple “when Abiathar was the high priest” and at the show bread, which was only for the priests to eat. One of the well-known problems of the passage is that when one looks at the Old Testament passage that Jesus is citing (1 Sam. 21:1–6), it turns out that David did this not when Abiathar was the high priest, but, in fact, when Abiathar’s father Ahimelech was. In other words, this is one of those passages that have been pointed to in order to show that the Bible is not inerrant at all but contains mistakes.

In my paper for Professor Story, I developed a long and complicated argument to the effect that even though Mark indicates this happened “when Abiathar was the high priest,” it doesn’t really mean that Abiathar was the high priest, but that the event took place in the part of the scriptural text that has Abiathar as one of the main characters. My argument was based on the meaning of the Greek words involved and was a bit convoluted. I was pretty sure Professor Story would appreciate the argument, since I knew him as a good Christian scholar who obviously (like me) would never think there could be anything like a genuine error in the Bible. But at the end of my paper he made a simple one-line comment that for some reason went straight through me. He wrote: “Maybe Mark just made a mistake.” I started thinking about it, considering all the work I had put into the paper, realizing that I had had to do some pretty fancy exegetical footwork to get around the problem, and that my solution was in fact a bit of a stretch. I finally concluded, “Hmm . . . maybe Mark did make a mistake.”

Once I made that admission, the floodgates opened. For if there could be one little, picayune mistake in Mark 2, maybe there could be mistakes in other places as well. . . .

I am convinced that Ehrman is mistaken, not Mark. In the passage Ehrman describes, Mark 2:23–28, Mark presents Jesus making a sophisticated interpretive connection by using the name “Abiathar.” That is, neither Mark nor Jesus is in error. Rather, Mark is presenting Jesus using the name Abiathar in the service of a wider, typological connection. I would invite you to consider the questions I ask about this passage in “The Typology of David’s Rise to Power” (13):

Much discussion has been generated by the fact that Mark 2:26 portrays Jesus referring to “the time of Abiathar the high priest,” when it appears that at the time, Ahimelech would have been the high priest. Goppelt simply asserts: “Mark says Abiathar, but that is an error.”[1] But perhaps there are typological forces at work here, too. David did interact with Ahimelech in 1 Samuel 21:1–9, but Abiathar is the priest who escapes from Doeg’s slaughter (22:20). Could the reference to Abiathar be intentional? Could Mark be presenting Jesus as intentionally alluding to Abiathar’s escape from the slaughter of the priests ordered by Saul and carried out by Doeg the Edomite? Could this be a subtle way for Jesus to remind the Pharisees (“Have you never read,” Mark 2:25) that the opposition to David was wicked and murderous? If this is so, the typological connection suggested by the reference to Abiathar in Mark might be that just as Saul and Doeg opposed David and Abiathar’s household, so also the Pharisees are opposing Jesus and his followers.[2]

In the wider context of this paragraph I discuss the flow of the passage in Samuel and the kind of interpretation Mark presents. Thanks to the generosity of The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology, a PDF of the essay is free to you.



[1] Goppelt, Typos, 85 n. 106.

[2] Having come to this position, I was pleased to find a similar suggestion in Rikk E. Watts, “Mark,” in Commentary on the New Testament Use of the Old Testament, ed. G. K. Beale and D. A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2007), 141: “If the point is to establish an authoritative precedent, then the actions of Abiathar, as Ahimelech’s son, in taking the ephod to David to become his chief priest and subsequent blessing underscore God’s affirmation of Ahimelech’s decision, his presence with David, and his abandonment of David’s opponent Saul. Not only are Jesus’ disciples justified, but also to oppose them (and, of course, Jesus) is to oppose both ‘David’ and ultimately God, who vindicated him and will also vindicate Jesus.”

14 Responses to Typology Preserves Biblical Inerrancy Against Ehrman’s Mistake

  1. Neo August 29, 2012 at 10:25 am #

    With Ehrman, I think he’s being disengenuous about the motives of his “deconversion” – much bigger than just over Mark 2, I think there’s a 1 John 2:19 factor at work in his life. Praying for him, and hoping that maybe at one of his James White-debates God can bring him back from his sinful rebellion.

  2. Dan Phillips August 29, 2012 at 11:18 am #

    Thanks, Jim. Adding to my BW9 notes arsenal.

  3. Saul Sarabia August 29, 2012 at 1:17 pm #

    yeah..good point..im reading the essay now….also im so thankfull for the essay “the Glory of God in Salvation Through Judgment” and i hope to buy the book soon..

  4. RD August 30, 2012 at 12:55 pm #

    Jim,

    In the Watts quote you provide he states, “…Abiathar, as Ahimelech’s son…”

    Was Abiathar Ahimelech’s son?

    Hope you have been well, my friend. It’s been a while since we’ve corresponded.

    -rd

    • JMH September 2, 2012 at 5:25 pm #

      Good to hear from you, RD, yes – see 1 Sam 22:20.

      • RD September 12, 2012 at 8:44 am #

        Good hearing from you as well, my friend!

        Then what are we to make of “Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelek son of Abiathar were priests” NIV 2 Samuel 8:17 and “Zadok son of Ahitub and Ahimelek son of Abiathar were priests” NIV 1 Chronicles 18:16?

        • JMH September 12, 2012 at 8:53 am #

          I haven’t taken a close look at these genealogies and don’t have time to just now, but it wouldn’t surprise me for a guy to name his son after his father . . . I have the same name as my dad, and my son has the same name we have . . .

  5. Ryan August 30, 2012 at 9:50 pm #

    I think it’s disingenuous to describe what Ehrman calls a “turning point” as “why he left the faith”. It’s like saying the last straw is why the camel’s back broke.

    I know that’s not the point of you post, but it struck me right off the bat.

  6. Saul Sarabia August 31, 2012 at 7:28 pm #

    Can u help me with the passage of Génesis 22 as typology in hebrews 11:17-19????

    • JMH September 2, 2012 at 5:27 pm #

      A father offers a beloved son, and then a substitute is provided. The author of Hebrews takes Abraham’s statement “we will go worship and WE will return to you” to mean that Abraham believes that though he is going to kill the boy, God will raise him from the dead and both will return.

      • Saul Sarabia September 2, 2012 at 7:36 pm #

        Thanks for your time…the reason for my question is because i read this stattement:

        “Genesis 22 has as main purpose to show the faith of Abraham, a lamb was given as a substitute for Isaac, but there is no substitute for Jesus, on the contrary, he is the substitute for sinners. The use of the type seen in passages such as is possible without the similarities are obvious, but we can not forget that they are the result of “extrapolation” in the mathematical sense, ie hypothetical extensions of the lines indicated. No doctrine was ever able to deduct a typological interpretation, and applications will not be legitimate unless confirmed by clear passages on the subject elsewhere in the Scriptures.”
        so what,s your thinking???

        • JMH September 2, 2012 at 8:44 pm #

          I’m not sure – who made that statement? Not altogether clear to me what it means . . .

          • Saul Sarabia September 2, 2012 at 9:28 pm #

            ahhh i understand now what you said..!!!”The author of Hebrews takes Abraham’s statement “we will go worship and WE will return to you” to mean that Abraham believes that though he is going to kill the boy, God will raise him from the dead and both will return.”
            so the statement dont care me more…
            thanks for your time and i have to say to you that i been blessing for your preaching..i think that your exposition of revelation(and your participation on “an evening on eschatology”) draw me to a premillennial view and i so thankful to you…
            i also hope to buy soon your great book, but im have not account on amazon and i live in mexico…but i want to read it soon and teach it in my sunday school..

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Check out | HeadHeartHand Blog - August 30, 2012

    […] Justin Taylor on Do Not Muzzle the Ox: Does Paul quote Moses out of Context? Jim Hamilton on how Typology Preserves Biblical Inerrancy Against Ehrman’s Mistake. Then Mike Leake reviews The Gospel According to Isaiah […]

Leave a Reply