New Testament Anachronism

The anachronistic tale of Mark 2:26

by Ibn Anwar, BHsc (Hons), MCollT

   In previous articles we have exposed and refuted fallacious charges of anachronism laid against the Qur’an by its detractors. The uninitiated missionary does not realise that the claim of anachronism is easily levelled against his Bible in a much more forceful manner. In this article we will look at one particular example out of numerous others of a clear anachronistic datum provided in the New Testament which is attributed to Jesus Christ. In the example in question we see Jesus anachronistically teach that David and his men ate the show bread which was reserved for the priests in the temple when they were hungry during the tenure of Abiathar as high priest. Any reader who is familiar with the story which is recapitulated (inaccurately) from the Old Testament knows that it was not Abiathar who was the high priest at that time but rather his father Ahimelech. The following are the relevant passages which you may read and compare for yourself:

Mark 2:26  1 Samuel 21:1-6
“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?” David went to Nob, to Ahimelek the priest. Ahimelek trembled when he met him, and asked, “Why are you alone? Why is no one with you?”David answered Ahimelek the priest, “The king sent me on a mission and said to me, ‘No one is to know anything about the mission I am sending you on.’ As for my men, I have told them to meet me at a certain place. Now then, what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread, or whatever you can find.” But the priest answered David, “I don’t have any ordinary bread on hand; however, there is some consecrated bread here—provided the men have kept themselves from women.” David replied, “Indeed women have been kept from us, as usual wheneverI set out. The men’s bodies are holy even on missions that are not holy. How much more so today!” So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, since there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from before the Lord and replaced by hot bread on the day it was taken away.

Commenting on the problem Eminent New Testament textual critic Prof. Bart Ehrman writes in his popular book ‘Misquoting Jesus’:

“…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 hungyr, how they went into the Temple “when Abiathar was the high priest” and ate 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 Jesus is citing (1 Sam. 21:1-6), it turns out that David did this not when Abiathar was 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.” [1]

The conservative Christian will be quick to note that the above comes from a personal favourite of Muslim apologists (at least that is the common perception Christians have concerning Bart Ehrman and how frequently he is cited by Muslims) and will somehow try to discredit him as a liberal anti-supernaturalist. That is a classic example of ad hominem. Rather than dealing with the points presented the person is made into the object of contention thus shifting attention from the problem found in the text in question to the person presenting the problem. Notwithstanding the clear cut inaccuracy attributed to Jesus in Mark 2:26 as discussed by Ehrman he is not the only one who has noted this problem. Among the earliest individuals who noticed the error were none other than the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Luke. Both authors of Matthew and Luke drew material from Mark to compose their own books. The Marcan priority theory and the usage of Mark as a common source by both Matthew and Luke have had the widest support in New Testament scholarship for many decades (to read more on the two source hypothesis please click here). There is little doubt in the view of New Testament scholars that Matthew and Luke relied on Mark 2:26 in their report of the Sabbath incident. Both authors noticed the error in Mark 2:26 and sought to resolve the conundrum by simply eliminating the reference to Abiathar in their respective accounts. This point is noted by the eminent New Testament scholar Prof. Raymond Brown:

“In Mark 2:26 Jesus says that David entered the house of God when Abiathar was high priestand ate the loaves of the presence. The scene is found in 1 Sam 21:2-7; there, however, the high priest is not Abiathar but Ahimelech. Matt and Luke seem to have noticed the difficulty, for their accounts of this saying of Jesus omit any mention of the high priest (Matt 12:4; Luke 6:4).” [2]

It is clear that Brown identifies this Markan reference as a mistake as the above discussion is placed under the entry “There are instances where the citation of Scripture attributed to Jesus involves a mistake.” in his book.

The problem is compounded further by the fact that in following Matthew and Luke certain scribes who were making copies of the gospel of Mark after realising the error also eliminated the reference to Abiathar. In a footnote to the above quote Brown pertinently writes:

“Some mss. of Mark also omit the italicized phrase, but the better mss. and the rules of textual criticism favour genuineness. Copyists of Mark were showing the same hesitation about including the mistake that Matt and Luke exhibited.” [3]

Similarly, Daniel Harrington in his commentary on Mark 2:26 writes:

“According to 1 Sam 21:1-2, the high priest was Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father. Some mss. omit the phrase, thus harmonizing the Marcan account with Matt 12:4 and Luke 6:4. There is little doubt, however, about the originality of the reading “Abiathar”…” [4]

Though in the above commentary he does not explicitly declare the reference as an error (yet it is reasonably implied), he does so in his work on the Gospel of Matthew:

“…deleting the erroneous mention of the high priest Abiathar (see Mark 2:26; Matthew 3:4));” [5]

Eugene Boring and Fred Craddock in their commentary on the verse in question write:

“2:26: When Abiathar was high priest: In fact, Ahimelech was high priest at the time (1 Sam. 21:1-6), not his son Abiathar (1 Sam. 22:20). This is a mistake omitted by both Matthew and Luke , but Mark was not the first to confuse the two names (see 2 Sam. 8:17)” [6]

Emeritus Professor of New Testament Language, Literature and Theology at Edinburgh University, Larry Hurtado in his commentary on Mark 2:26 writes:

2:26/ In the days of Abiathar the high priest: This is a problem, for the 1 Sam. 21:1-6 account says that it was Ahimelech who was the priest who gave David the sacred bread. It is possible that the Markan account is confused here, for the OT itself is not easy to follow in its references to Ahimelech and Abiathar. In 1 Sam. 22:20, Abiathar is described as son of Ahimelech; whereas 2 Sam. 8:17 and 1 Chron. 24:6 refer to an Ahimelech as son of Abiathar and as priest under David. Elsewhere Abiathar is referred to as David’s priest with Zadok (2 Sam.  15:16-29, 35-37; 20:23-26; cf. 1 Kings 2:26-27, 35). The parallel accounts in Matt. 12:1-8 and Luke 6:1-5 omit this reference to Abiathar, as do a few manuscripts of Mark – in the latter case no doubt because the mention of him seemed incorrect and embarrassing to some scribes. It is possible that the Greek phrase here translated in the days of Abiathar the high priest may mean simply “in the time of Abiathar the [later] high priest” and not that Abiathar was high priest at the time of the incident.” [7]

The brief reconciliatory remark at the end of the above by Hurtado need not move us as he has clearly admitted at the beginning that the text is indeed a problem which was serious enough to have driven some scribes to delete the original words in their own attempt at reconciliation. He also notes that Matthew and Luke both chose to omit the reference to Abiathar which can only be cogently explained by the fact that they realised the difficulty and mistake posed by the reference made to Abiathar in Mark. This good point has already been made by the above cited scholars. Furthermore, it is highly improbable that the author knew that the correct reference would be Ahimelech yet chose to reference Abiathar instead when the point of the story is that David took the bread and the one that he encountered according to 1 Samuel was not Abiathar but rather Ahimelech. Why would he reference Abiathar when he has nothing to do with the context of the citation attributed to Jesus? It is evident that the author of Mark believed(and confused) Abiathar with Ahimelech. Clearly, Hurtado’s suggestion does not hold water. Finally, if the suggested solution is indeed sound the text in question should not be a problem to Hurtado in the first place. The initial admission negates the attempted solution.

Distinguished Professor of the New Testament and Greek at Messiah College, Michael Cosby also recognises the problem in Mark 2:26 as he writes:

“Luke 6:4 deletes the problematic reference to Abiathar in Mark 2:26;” [7]

Hayes Professor of New Testament Language and Literature at Bangor Theological Seminary, Burton Hamilton Throckmorton writes:

“Another very interesting omission from both Matthew and Luke is Mark’s  “when Abiathar was high priest” (Mark 2:26). The probable reason for this omission was that Mark had made a mistake. According to 1 Sam. 21:1-6, the high priest at the time of the incident involving David was Ahimelech, not Abiathar. Matthew and Luke may very well have noted the error and skipped it.” [8]

Professor of Religion at Nebraska Wesleyan University, David Peabody together with other scholars write:

“Mk. 2:26. Mark’s additional note that David’s action took place during the high priesthood of Abiathar (Mk 2:26), if the text is correct, contradicts the Biblical record, which dates these events during the high priesthood of Abiathar’s father, Ahimelech (1 Sam 21:1-6; cf. 1 Sam 22:20). This is one of several problems in Mark’s text with regard to Jewish history, Judaism, and Palestinian geography. Such inaccuracies create a problem for those who hold that the Gospel of Mark was composed in Galilee.” [9]

Joel Stephen Williams who is Adjunct Instructor in Christian Theology at Heritage Christian University favouring and demonstrating that the Bible cannot be inerrant uses the following among numerous examples of discrepencies and errors in his journal article on the subject:

“Who was high priest? Was it Abiathar or Ahimelech?  (Mk, 2:26; 1 Sam. 21:1-6; 22:20; 2 Sam. 8:17; 1 Chron. 18:16; 24:6)?” [10]

Earlier, we identified the authors of Matthew and Luke as the earliest of those who recognised the error of Mark 2:26 and thereafter corrected it. This is confirmed by the reputed evangelical Biblical scholar Craig A. Evans:

“In justifying the plucking and eating of grain on the Sabbath (cf. Mark 2:23-28) Jesus cites the episode in which David ate the showbread (cf. 1 Sam 21:1-6). The point that Jesus is trying to make is clear enough, but the temporal phrase of v 26, “when Abiathar was high priest” (ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως), is problematic. According to 1 Sam 21:1 [Hebr v. 2] the priest was Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar. Abiathar does not become high priest until after Saul has the priests of Nob executed (cf. 11 Sam 22:18) and is not mentioned by name until 1 Sam 22:20. Thus, the phrase in its Markan context is apparently inaccurate.

Modern commentators tend to view the reference to Abiathar either as “an error of memory, in which Ahimelech is confounded with Abiathar,” a scribal gloss (attested by the absence of the phrase in Matthew and Luke and a few mss), or as possibly reflecting a midrash on Samuel. A few scholars have suggested that the preposition ἐπὶ may be understood as pointing to the specific Old Testament passage in question, and so might be translated: “in the passage concerned with Abiathar the high priest.” Though this does indeed seem to be the meaning of ἐπὶ in Mark 12:26 (ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου: “in the passage concerning the bush”) it is unlikely that this is its force in 2:26. So the phrase remains problematic.

Very early on, the presence of the phrase was perceived to be a problem and early Christian interpreters attempted either to correct the text or to find a plausible explanation for the text as it stands. Assuming Markan priority, then in all probability the evangelists Matthew (cf. 12:4) and Luke (cf. 6:4) were the first Christian interpreters who attempted to solve the problem and this they did by omitting the problematic phrase. Some Christian scribes followed the lead of the later evangelists and elected to drop the phrase from Mark’s gospel itself (cf. D W 1009 1546 [uncorrected] and some of the Italian and Syriac mss). Some copyists (cf. Α C Θ Π 074 33, several minuscules, Sahidic and Boharic Coptic versions, and Chrysostom) add the article του (i.e., ἐπὶ Ἀβιάθαρ του ἀρχιερέως ἀρχιερέως), perhaps in order to create a new sense: “in the days of Abiathar [one who would eventually become] high priest” Other mss (cf. Δ itf goth) read ιερέως instead of ἀρχιερέως, which would have the effect of harmonizing the Markan text with 1 Samuel since Abiathar, though not yet high priest, was at the time a priest (cf. 1 Sam 2:11, 17-18). ” [11]

Ordained clergyman in the United Church of Canada and Theologian Neil Parker provides further details on the conflict between the Marcan and Samuel accounts:

“On the other hand, the Marcan summary conflicts with 1 Sam 21:1-6 at several points. Firstly, the incident, according to 1 Sam 21:1, took place during the tenure of of the priest Ahimelech, but according to Mk 2:26 that of his son Abiathar. Secondly, according to 1 Sam, David approaches the priest with a request for food ( v. 1), a request which is granted when the priest gives him the loaves of the Presence (v. 6); according to Mark, David enters the house of God and eats the loaves of the Presence without having consulted the priest beforehand (v. 26). Thirdly, according to 1 Sam, David comes to the unaccompanied (v. 1); according to Mark he acts in company with his supporters (v. 25)Fourthly, the writer of the Marcan account includes a clause to the effects that it was unlawful for anyone other than the priest to eat the bread of the Presence (v. 26); the account in 1 Sam contains no corresponding note. Fifthly, while David figures prominently both in Mark and in 1 Sam, it is significant the priest assumes a role equally important in 1 Sam, but in Mark he merely serves to provide a temporal context, and that the companions of David who receive no mention in 1 Sam are co-actors with him in Mark.” [12]

Though Parker concludes by suggesting that Mark 2:25-26 is a content paraphrase of 1 Samuel  21:1-6 the fact that the Marcan account misidentifies the person who actually met David is inescapable.

It is abundantly clear from our discussion that we have here a clear example of an error, an anachronistic story that is found in the New Testament. The Christians would do well to stop accusing Islam and the Qur’an of anachronism as their own book is riddled with it.


Though D. M. Murdock’s belief concerning the existence of Jesus Christ is highly objectionable especially in light of recent scholarship in the field (refer to Ehrman’s latest publication) she is nevertheless a recognised writer on Christianity . Her thoughts on Mark 2:26 is certainly reasonable as they correspond and lend further input to what we have already discussed thus far. She writes:

“In another example of an evident error in the New Testament, Mark 2:26 portrays Jesus as saying that the high priest  during David’s entry into the temple depicted at 1 Samuel 21 was Abiathar, whereas the Old Testament passage states that it was Ahimelech, Abiathar’s father. Hence, either Jesus was incorrect, which casts doubt on his claim to be the all-knowing Lord, or Mark is wrong, which, again, shows that the New Testament is not inerrant.” [13]

One of the many contradictory solutions offered by Christian apologists is that the verse refers to the time when Abiathar was around but not when he was appointed as high priest. Refuting this shaky explanation she writes:

“The apology offered for this verse by Geisler is that Christ refers to the “days of Abiathar,” which could include the time preceding his appointment as high priest. In reality, the Greek for this scripture is epi abiathar tou archiereos. One of the pertinent words here is epi, a preposition that means “upon,” “on” or “at,” as in “at the time.”The passage could be translated as “at the time of Abiathar the high priest,” clearly indicating that Jesus meant to convey that Abiathar was high priest at the time, a logical conclusion.” [14]

Even the eminent conservative scholar F. F. Bruce is cornered to admit that there is no real and final answer to the textual problem posed by Mark 2:26. After evaluating some of the possible solutions proffered to resolve the issue and putting forward critiques on those suggestions he admits the following:

“The truth is that this is one of the problems in Scripture for which we do not have a fully satisfactory solution…While many ancient historians would not have been bothered by such an innocuous slip, it did seem to bother Matthew and Luke, so we cannot be sure that it would not have bothered Mark. Thus we can either arbitrarily select one of the speculative solutions mentioned in the previous paragraph, perhaps choosing one which pleases us best, or we can say, “We honestly don’t know what the answer is to this problem, nor are we likely to ever know.” [15] (bold emphasis added)

The above is surely a candid admission by F. F. Bruce along with three of his colleagues Walter Kaiser, Peter Davids and Manfred Brauch.

Retired Episcopal priest Father Richard Losch confirms the error as he writes:

“Abiathar is mentioned erroneously in Mark 2:26 as the high priest at Nob. His high priesthood, however, did not come until later at Jerusalem – high father Ahimelech was the high priest at Nob.” [16]

Professor of Theology and Chair of the Department of Theology at Saint Joseph’s College, Steven Bridge writes:

“A similar mistake appears where Mark (2:26) refers to “Abiathar” as the high priest whosupplied David with the showbread from the temple. According to 1 Samuel 21.2-7, it was not Abiathar, but Ahimelech, the father of Abiathar, who did this. Matthew (Mt 12.4) and Luke (6.4) simply avoid naming the high priest at all.” [17]

Professor and the Chair of the Biblical Studies Department at Boston College School of Theology and Ministry, Daniel J. Harrington whom we have quoted earlier reiterates unequivocally elsewhere in his much more recent published work that the reference is an error:

“Another mistake in Mark’s use of the Old Testament occurs at 2:26, where he says that Abiathar (rather than Ahimelech) was the priest when David demanded the bread of the presence (See 1 Samuel 21:1-6).” [18]

The late theologian and Anglican clergyman who was Canon Residentiary of Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, W. R. F. Browning writes:

“Mark’s reference (2:26) to Abiathar as the high priest is a mistake which Matthew and Luke correct by omitting the name (Matt. 12:4; Luke 6:4).” [19]

Charles Howard Candler Professor of New Testament Studies, Carl Holladay writes:

Mark 2:26 incorrectly identifies  Abiathar (instead of his father Ahimelech) as high priest when David when David entered the temple to eat the bread of the presence (1 Sam 21:1-6; cf. 30:7). The reference to Abiathar is omitted in the parallel accounts (Matt. 14:4; Luke 6:4), thereby producing a correct text.”[20]

Biblical scholar and theologian who was Fellow of Jesus College, Cambridge, Herbert Wood in his commentary on Mark 2:26 writes:

“26. The reference to Abiathar is a mistake probably due to the evangelist, possibly to a glossator. But the act of David is described with some traditional embellishments. David’s entry into the sanctuary and the presence of his companions are suppositions not necessarily involved in 1 S. 21, 1-7 (Loisy, p. 101)” [21] (emphasis added)

Theologian S. D. F. Salmond who was Principal of the United Free Church, Aberdeen in his commentary on the verse writes:

when Abiathar was high priest: i.e. when he was actually in office. But according to the narrative in I Sam. xxii. II Ahimelech was high priest at the time. There seems to be some confusion in the O. T. text.” [22]

In the above we see that Salmon understands that Mark 2:26 is specifically identifying Abiathar as the functioning high priest at the time, yet he seems to want to shift the blame more to the Old Testament than to readily and unequivocally admit that Mark has committed an error here even though that is the clear implication of the comparison he made to 1 Samuel 22.

~Please click here for additional notes and information on the anachronous nature of Mark 12:26: New Testament anachronism Part 2


[1] Ehrman, B. D. (2005). Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. New York: HarperSanFrancisco. p. 9

[2] Brown, R. E. (1994). An Introduction to New Testament Christology. Mahwah, New Jersey: Paulist Press. pp. 37-38

[3] Ibid. p. 38 fn. 43

[4] Harrington, D. J. (1990). The Gospel According to Mark. In Raymond E. Brown, Joseph A. Fitzmyer & Roland E. Murphy (Eds.), The New Jerome Biblical Commentary. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. p. 603

[5] Harrington, D. J. (1991). Sacra Pagina: The Gospel of Matthew. United States: The Liturgical Press. p. 174

[6] Boring, M. E., & Craddock, F. B. (2010). The People’s New Testament Commentary. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p.  116

[7] Hurtado, L. W. (2011). Mark: Understanding the Bible Commentary Series. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books.

[8] Throckmorton, B. H. (1998). Jesus Christ: The Message of the Gospels, the Hope of the Church. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster John Knox Press. p. 29

[9] Peabody, D. B., Cope, L., & McNicol, A. J. (2002). One Gospel from Two,  Mark’s Use of Matthew and Luke: A Demonstration by the Research Team of the International Institute for Gospel Studies. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Trinity Press International. p.  109

[10] William, J. S. (1996). The Error of Inerrancy. Encounter 56.1, 51-73. Retrieved from,%20The%20Error%20of%20Inerrancy.pdf

[11] Evans, C. A. (June, 1986). Patristic Interpretation of Mark 2:26 “When Abiathar Was High Priest”. Vigiliae Christianae, 40(2). 183-186.

[12] Parker, N. R. (2008). The Marcan Portrayal of the “Jewish”Unbeliever: A Function of the Marcan References to Jewish Scripture. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. p. 175

[13] Murdock, D. M. (2011). Who was Jesus? Fingerprints of the Christ. Seattle, Washington: Stellar House Publishing. pp. 157-158

[14] Ibid. p. 158

[15] Kaiser, W. C., Davids, P. H., Bruce, F. F. & Brauch, M. T. (1996). Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press. p. 412

[16] Losch, R. R. (2008). All the People in the Bible: An A-Z Guide to the Saints, Scoundrels, and Other Characters in Scripture. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. p. 4

[17] Bridge, S. L. (2002). Literary Source and Redaction Criticism. In Anthony J. Blasi, Jean Duhaime & Paul-Andrew Turcotte (Eds.), Handbook of Early Christianity. p. 135

[18] Harrington, D. J. (2011). Meeting Saint Mark Today: Understand the Man, His Mission, and His Message. Illinois, Chicago: Loyola Press. p. 8

[19] Browning, W. R. F. (2009). Oxford, A Dictionary of the Bible. New York: Oxford University Press. p. 17

[20] Holladay, C. R. (2005). A Critical Introduction to the New Testament: Interpreting the Message and Meaning of Jesus Christ. Nashville: Abingdon Press. p. 50

[21] Wood, H. G. (1920). Mark. In Arthur S. Peake and A. J. Grieve, A Commentary on the Bible. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons. p. 684

[22] Salmond, S. D. F. (n.d.). St. Mark. In W. F. Adeney, The Century Bible: A Modern Commentary, Vol. 12. London: The Caxton Publishing Company. p. 146

You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

18 Responses to “New Testament Anachronism”

  1. Alms says:

    I think that you have here quite ably documented a very clear and well established error in the New Testament. I can clearly see that no any of the usual christian attempts at hiding Biblical errors (which they slyly termed ‘harmonizations’) could work here as in the most cases concerting Biblical errors. It follows that the logical conclusion to be drawn from this biblical error as it is ascribed to the biblical Jesus is that the biblical Jesus speaks quite fallibly – not even as inspired prophet let alone God himself. And, if the fault is the gospel writer’s in his putting words into Jesus’ mouth and thus making Jesus less than an inspired Prophet, then it is enough evidence not only to suspect but to outrightly dismiss the words and actions ascribed to Jesus by the New Testament writers as not creditable.

    • Mustafa says:

      Salam everyone. As usual Ibn anwar has done it again! Excellent expose brother. You have soundly refuted the christian claim that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

  2. JesusSuperStar says:

    Total smack down Ibn!

  3. Jesus says:

    Excellent brother!

    The best part i like about your articles are they are fortified by citations of many scholars.

    May God bless you .

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      JazakAllah khair. For a while I thought you’ve abandoned our website. It’s good to know that you still visit us :D.

  4. alsiddiq7860 says:

    i smiled reading this. very nice argument. it’s funny to see Mark wrote it was Abiathar the high priest that David met instead of Ahimelek as in 1 Samuel 21. but it was even funnier when Matthew and Luke didn’t mention who the priest were for they got confused either to follow 1 Samuel 21 or just copy from Mark 🙂

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      Very nice to see you here akhi. Please do keep visiting the site and share with us more of your valuable thoughts, insha’Allah. 😀

  5. Jesus says:

    Vow brother , the new citations are wonderful .Thanks for them.Keep up the good work.

  6. Jesus says:

    Salaam akhi

    Answering Islam has produced a rebuttal to this article of yours .Jochen Katz and Keith Thompson has both produced rebuttals ,you should see it it is so hilarious response !

    Keith says you have cited only few liberal scholars , probably he forgot to see the references and the number of scholars conservatives including you cited in your article .

    Now whom they cite Katz cite none and Keith cites Dr. Gleason L. Archer ,Scott Hahn and Curtis Mitch , ONLY 3 SCHOLARS .

    He counters your article with reference of 20 scholars with 3 scholars and who are they most conservative with believe of inerrancy which is rejected by a concences.

    Keiths main points boils down to the point that Jesus is saying ‘in the days of’

    you already refuted it

    “Furthermore, it is highly improbable that the author knew that the correct reference would be Ahimelech yet chose to reference Abiathar instead when the point of the story is that David took the bread and the one that he encountered according to 1 Samuel was not Abiathar but rather Ahimelech. Why would he reference Abiathar when he has nothing to do with the context of the citation attributed to Jesus? It is evident that the author of Mark believed(and confused) Abiathar with Ahimelech. Clearly, Hurtado’s suggestion does not hold water ”

    Probably kieth did not read and did not know this as his risen Lord.

    • Ibn Anwar says:

      lol brother, yes I have read those “rebuttals.” I have long decided not to really waste my time by producing counter rebuttals to those that they produce that are really of no value in my estimation.

  7. IslamisAntichrist says:

    I would submit that Ibn Anwar is incapable of correctly representing/understanding what Katz and Thompson have argued along with Archer, Tsumura, Hurtado, Hahn and Mitch (and the many others who hold this view but were not quoted), and also that he would not be able to address the arguments convincingly. This is why the smokescreen of “they…are really of no value” is given.

  8. IslamisAntichrist says:

    And also notice that poser above who calls himself “Jesus” can only lie and say:

    “Keith says you have cited only few liberal scholars , probably he forgot to see the references and the number of scholars conservatives including you cited in your article”

    But look at what Keith actually said:

    “Ibn Anwar cites skeptics like Bart Ehrman and liberal scholars such as Raymond Brown, as well as some moderately conservative scholars such as Craig Evans and others”

    Witness how these people do not even have the ability to comprehend what is written and then resort to untruths because of it. Truly fascinating to observe.

    • Jesus says:

      Your quoting of Keith actually supports me , did not Ibn Anwar cite many scholars including conservatives like F.F Bruce ? . This obviously was omitted by Kieth.

      Coming on to lie , can you say me who lied in Mark 2:26 , Biblical Jesus or the author of Mark under inspiration of Holy spirit ??

  9. Jesus says:

    brother please write scholarly article on Biblical Jesus failed prophecy on end of times and cite many scholars so that these Christians should shut their mouths up .

Leave a Reply