Abiathar

the son of Ahimelech, and the tenth high priest among the Jews, and fourth in descent from Eli. 2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 18:16. When Saul sent to Nob to murder all the priests, Abiathar escaped the massacre, and fled to David in the wilderness. There he continued in the quality of high priest; but Saul, out of aversion to Ahimelech, whom he imagined to have betrayed his interests, transferred the dignity of the high priesthood from Ithamar’s family into that of Eleazar, by conferring this office upon Zadok. Thus there were, at the same time, two high priests in Israel, Abiathar with David, and Zadok with Saul. In this state things continued, until the reign of Solomon, when Abiathar, being attached to the party of Adonijah, was, by Solomon, divested of his priesthood, A.M. 2989 and the race of Zadok alone performed the functions of that office during the reign of Solomon, to the exclusion of the family of Ithamar, according to the word of the Lord to Eli. 1Sa 2:30, &c.

Abi´athar (Father of abundance), the tenth high-priest of the Jews, and fourth in descent from Eli. When his father, the high-priest Abimelech, was slain with the priests at Nob, for suspected partiality to the fugitive David, Abiathar escaped the massacre; and bearing with him the most essential part of the priestly raiment, the ephod [PRIEST], repaired to the son of Jesse, who was then in the cave of Adullam (1Sa 22:20-23; 1Sa 23:6). He was well received by David, and became the priest of the party during its wanderings. As such he sought and received for David responses from God. When David became king of Judah, he made Abiathar high-priest. Meanwhile Zadok had been appointed high-priest by Saul, and continued to act in this capacity while Abiathar was high-priest in Judah. The appointment of Zadok was not only unexceptionable in itself, but was in accordance with the divine sentence of deposition which had been passed upon the house of Eli (1Sa 2:30-36). When, therefore, David acquired the kingdom of Israel, he had no just ground on which Zadok could be removed, and Abiathar set in his place; and the attempt to do so would probably have been offensive to his new subjects. The king got over this difficulty by allowing both appointments to stand; and until the end of David’s reign Zadok and Abiathar were joint high-priests. As high-priest Abiathar must have been perfectly aware of the divine intention that Solomon should be the successor of David: he was therefore the least excusable, in some respects, of all those who were parties in the attempt to raise Adonijah to the throne. So his conduct seems to have been viewed by Solomon, who, in deposing him from the high-priesthood, plainly told him that only his sacerdotal character, and his former services to David, preserved him from death. This deposition of Abiathar completed the doom long before denounced upon the house of Eli, who was of the line of Ithamar, the younger son of Aaron. Zadok, who remained the high-priest, was of the elder line of Eleazer (1Ki 1:7; 1Ki 1:19; 1Ki 2:26-27).

Son of Ahimelech, and tenth high priest of the Jews. When Saul sent his emissaries to Nob, to destroy all the priests there, Abiathar, who was young, fled to David in the wilderness, {\cf11 \ul 1Sa 22:11-23}, with whom he continued in the character of priest, {\cf11 \ul 1Sa 23:9}; {\cf11 \ul 1Sa 30:7}. Being confirmed in the high priesthood on David’s accession to the throne, he aided in bringing up the ark to Jerusalem, {\cf11 \ul 1Co 15:11-12}, and adhered to David during the rebellion of Absalom, {\cf11 \ul 2Sa 15:35}, but afterwards was led to follow Adonijah, thus strangely betraying his royal friend in his old age. Solomon succeeding to the throne, degraded him from the priesthood, and sent him to Anathoth, {\cf11 \ul 1Ki 2:26-27}; thus fulfilling the prediction made to Eli 150 years before, {\cf11 \ul 1Sa 2:27-36}. Saul, it would appear, had transferred the dignity of the high priesthood from the line of Ithamar, to which Eli belonged, to that of Eleazar, by conferring the office upon Zadok. Thus there were, at the same time, two high priests in Israel; Abiathar with David, and Zadok with Saul. This double priesthood continued from the death of Ahimelech till the reign of Solomon, after which the office was held by Zadok and his race alone.\PAR

A difficulty arises from the circumstance that, in {\cf11 \ul 1Ki 2:27}, Abiathar is said to be deprived of the priest’s office by Solomon; while in {\cf11 \ul 2Sa 8:17}; {\cf11 \ul 2Sa 8:1}Ch 18:16; {\cf11 \ul 1Ch 24:3}; {\cf11 \ul 1Ch 24:6}; {\cf11 \ul 1Ch 24:31}, Ahimelech the son of Abiathar is said to be high priest along with Zadok. The most probable solution is, that both father and son each bore the two names Ahimelech and Abiathar, as was not at all unusual among the Jews. See under ABIGAIL. In this was also we may remove the difficulty arising from {\cf11 \ul Rom 2:26}, where Abiathar is said to have given David the showbread, in allusion to {\cf11 \ul 1Sa 21:1-6}, where it is Ahimelech.\PAR

Abi’athar. (father of abundance, that is, liberal). High priest and fourth in descent from Eli. (B.C. 1060-1012). Abiathar was the only one of the all the sons of Ahimelech, the high priest, who escaped the slaughter inflicted upon his father’s house by Saul, in revenge for his father’s house by Saul, in revenge of his having inquired of the Lord for David and given him the shew-bread to eat. 1Sa 22:1.

Abiathar having become high priest fled to David, and was thus enabled to inquire of the Lord for him. 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 30:7; 2Sa 2:1; 2Sa 5:19, etc. He adhered to David in his wanderings while pursued by Saul; he was with him while he reigned in Hebron, and afterwards, in Jerusalem. 2Sa 2:1-3. He continued faithful to him in Absalom’s rebellion. 2Sa 15:24; 2Sa 15:29; 2Sa 15:35-36; 2Sa 17:15-17; 2Sa 19:11.

When, however, Adonijah set himself up for David’s successor on the throne, in opposition to Solomon, Abiathar sided with him, while Zadok was on Solomon’s side. For this Abiathar was deprived of the high priesthood. Zadok had joined David at Hebron, 1Ch 12:28, so that there was henceforth who high priests in the reign of David, and till the deposition of Abiathar by Solomon, when Zadok became the sole high priest.

("father of abundance".) The only son of Ahimelech, the high priest, who escaped the slaughter committed by Saul at Nob, on Doeg’s information that Ahimelech had inquired of the Lord for David, and given him the shewbread and the sword of Goliath (1 Samuel 22). Eighty-five persons wearing the priestly linen ephod were killed. Abiathar, with an ephod (the high priest’s mystic scarf) in his hand, escaped to David. It is an instance of God’s retributive justice that Saul’s murder of the priests deprived him thenceforth of their services in inquiring of the Lord (1Ch 13:3); step by step he sank, until, bereft of legitimate means of obtaining divine counsel, he resorted to the illicit course of consulting the witch of Endor, and so filled the measure of his iniquity and brought on himself destruction (1Ch 10:13). David, on the contrary, by sheltering Abiathar was enabled to inquire of the Lord in the ordained way (1Sa 23:6-9; 1Sa 30:7; 2Sa 2:1; 2Sa 5:19; 2Sa 21:1, an undesigned coincidence with Psa 16:7, and so a proof of genuineness).

Abiathar adhered to David during all his wanderings, and was afflicted in all wherein David was afflicted; also when he assumed the throne in Hebron, the Aaronite priestly city of refuge. He bore the ark before David when it was brought up from Obed-Edom’s house to Jerusalem (1Ch 15:11-12; 1Ki 2:26). He was loyal in Absalom’s rebellion; and, subordinate to Altithophel, was the king’s counselor (1Ch 27:34). But in Adonijah’s attempt to be David’s successor, instead of Solomon, Abiathar, probably from jealousy of Zadok, who was on Solomon’s side, took Adonijah’s part. David had evidently for some time previous given the first place in his confidence to Zadok, a preference the more galling as Abiathar was the high priest and Zadok only his vicar, or sagan; thus it was to Zadok he gave the command to take the ark back in Absalom’s rebellion. Abiathar is mentioned subordinately 1Sa 15:25; 1Sa 15:29; 1Sa 15:35.

Perhaps Zadok was appointed high priest by Saul after the slaughter of Ahimelech. David on succeeding, to conciliate his subjects, allowed him conjointly to hold office with Abiathar. Zadok had joined David in Hebron after Saul’s death, with 22 captains of his father’s house (1Ch 12:28). Abiathar had the first place, with the ephod, Urim and Thummim, and the ark, in the tent pitched by David at Jerusalem Zadok officiated before the tabernacle and brazen altar made by Moses and Bezaleel in the wilderness, which were now in Gibeon (1Ch 16:1-7; 1Ch 16:37; 1Ch 16:39-40; 1Ch 27:38; 1Ch 27:34; 2Ch 1:3-5). Moreover, Zadok and Abiathar represented rival houses: Zadok that of Eleazar, the oldest son of Aaron; Abiathar that of Ithamar, the youngest (1Ch 24:3-4; 1Ch 6:8). Eli, of whose family it had been foretold 150 years before that the priesthood should pass from it, was Abiathar’s progenitor fourth backward, and Abiathar would naturally fear the coming realization of the curse. All these undesigned proprieties mark the truth of the history. His own act brought the prophecy to its consummation (1Sa 2:31-35). Solomon banished him to Anathoth, and put Zadok as high priest in his room (1Ki 2:35). But in 1Ki 4:4 Abiathar is still called the "priest" second to Zadok. The Septuagint, "the king made Zadok the first priest in the room of Abiathar," solves the difficulty. Abiathar had been first, priest, but henceforth he was made subordinate to Zadok. Ahimelech or Abimelech, son of Ahimelech, is substituted for Ahimelech, son of Ahimelech: 2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 18:16; 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6; 1Ch 24:31. The Lord Jesus (Mar 2:26) names Ahimelech as the high priest in whose time David ate the shewbread. Probably the sense is: "in the days of Ahimelech, who was afterward high priest," and under whom the record of the fact would be made. Perhaps too the loaves being his perquisite (Lev 24:9) were actually handed by Ahimelech to David. Both father and son, moreover, it seems from the quotations above, bore both names, and were indifferently called by either.

(Heb. Ebyathar’, אֶבְיָתָר, father of abundance, i.e. liberal; Sept. ‘Αβιάθαρ or ‘Αβιαθάρ, N.T. ‘Αβιάθαρ, Josephus ‘Αβιάθαρος), the thirteenth high-priest of the Jews, being the son of Ahimelech, and the third in descent from Eli; B.C. 1060-1012. When his father was slain with the priests of Nob, for suspected partiality to David, Abiathar escaped; and bearing with him the most essential part of the priestly raiment [ sEE EPHOD ], repaired to the son of Jesse, who was then in the cave of Adullam (1Sa 22:20-23; 1Sa 23:6). He was well received by David, and became the priest of the party during its exile and wanderings, receiving for David responses from God (1Sa 30:7; comp. 2Sa 2:1; 2Sa 5:19). The cause of this strong attachment on the part of the monarch was the feeling that he had been unintentionally the cause of the death of Abiathar’s kindred. When David became king of Judah he appointed Abiathar high priest (see 1Ch 15:11; 1Ki 2:26), and a member of his cabinet (1Ch 27:34). Meanwhile Zadok had been made high-priest by Saul — an appointment not only unexceptionable in itself, but in accordance with the divine sentence of deposition which had been passed, through Samuel, upon the house of Eli (1Sa 2:30-36). When, therefore, David acquired the kingdom of Israel, he had no just ground on which Zadok could be removed, and Abiathar set in his place; and the attempt would probably have been offensive to his new subjects, who had been accustomed to the ministration of Zadok, and whose good feeling he was anxious to cultivate. The king appears to have got over this difficulty by allowing both appointments to stand; and until the end of David’s reign Zadok and Abiathar were joint high priests (1Ki 4:4). As a high-priest, Abiathar was the least excusable, in some respects, of all those who were parties in the attempt to raise Adonijah to the throne (1Ki 1:19); and Solomon, in deposing him from the high-priesthood, plainly told him that only his sacerdotal character, and his former services to David, preserved him from capital punishment (1Ki 2:26-27). This completed the doom upon the house of Eli, and restored the pontifical succession — Zadok, who remained the high-priest, being of the elder line of Aaron’s sons. SEE ELEAZAR.

In Mar 2:26, a circumstance is described as occurring “in the days of Abiathar, the high-priest” (ἐπὶ ‘Αβιάθαρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως — a phrase that is susceptible of the rendering, in [the time] of Abiathar, [the son] of the high-priest), which appears, from 1Sa 21:1, to have really occurred when his father Ahimelech was the high-priest. The most probable solution of this difficulty (but see Alford’s Comment. in loc.) is that which interprets the reference thus: “in the days of Abiathar, who was afterward the high-priest” (Middleton, Greek Article, p. 188-190). But this leaves open another difficulty, which arises from the precisely opposite reference (in 2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 18:16; 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6) to “Ahimelech [or Abimelech] the son of Abiathar,” as the person who was high-priest along with Zadok, and who was deposed by Solomon; whereas the history describes that personage as Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech. Another explanation is, that both father and son bore the two names of Ahimelech and Abiathar, and might be, and were, called by either (J. C. Leuschner, De Achimelecho binomini, Hirschb. 1750). But although it was not unusual for the Jews to have two names, it was not usual for both father and son to have the same two names. Others suppose a second Abiathar, the father of Ahimelech, and some even a son of the same name; but none of these suppositions are warranted by the text, nor allowable in the list of high priests. SEE HIGH-PRIEST. The names have probably become transposed by copyists, for the Syriac and Arabic versions have “Abiathar, the son of Ahimelech.” The mention of Abiathar in the above passage of Mark, rather than the acting priest Ahimelech, may have arisen from the greater prominence of the former in the history of David’s reign, and he appears even at that time to have been with his father, and to have had some part in the pontifical duties. In additional explanation of the other difficulty above referred to, it may be suggested as not unlikely that Ahimelech may have been the name of one of Abiathar’s sons likewise associated with him, as well as that of his father, and that copyists have confounded these names together. SEE AHIMLECH.

Abiathar (a-bî’a-thar), father of abundance, i.e., liberal. Tenth high priest and descendant of Levi through Eli. Abiathar was the only one of all the sons of Ahimelech the high priest who escaped the slaughter inflicted upon his father’s house by Saul, in revenge for his having inquired of the Lord for David and given him the shewbread to eat. 1Sa 22:21-23. Abiathar having become high priest fled to David, and was thus enabled to inquire of the Lord for him. 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 30:7; 2Sa 2:1; 2Sa 5:19, etc. He adhered to David in his wanderings while pursued by Saul; he was with him while he reigned in Hebron, and afterwards in Jerusalem. 2Sa 2:1-3. He continued faithful to him in Absalom’s rebellion. 2Sa 15:24; 2Sa 15:29; 2Sa 15:35-36; 2Sa 17:15-17; 2Sa 19:11. When, however, Adonijah set himself up for David’s successor on the throne, in opposition to Solomon, Abiathar sided with him, while Zadok was on Solomon’s side. For this Abiathar was deprived of the high priesthood. Zadok had joined David at Hebron, 1Ch 12:28, so that there were henceforth two high priests in the reign of David, and till the deposition of Abiathar by Solomon, when Zadok became the sole high priest, thus fulfilling the prophecy of 1Sa 2:30. Abimelech, or Abimelech, son of Abiathar, is substituted for Abiathar, son of Ahimelech. 2Sa 8:17; 1Ch 18:16; 1Ch 24:3; 1Ch 24:6; 1Ch 24:31. The Lord Jesus, Mar 2:26, names Abiathar as the high priest in whose time David ate the shewbread. Probably the sense is: "In the days of Abiathar, who was afterwards high priest," and under whom the record of the fact would be made. Perhaps too the loaves, being his perquisite, Lev 24:9, were actually handed by Abiathar to David. Both father and son, moreover, it seems from the quotations above, bore both names, and were indifferently called by either.

[Abi’athar]

Son of Ahimelech the high priest. He escaped from the slaughter of the priests executed by Doeg at the command of Saul, 1Sa 22:18; 1Sa 22:20. He became an adherent of David, and was acknowledged as high priest; but becoming involved in Adonijah’s rebellion he was deprived of the priesthood by Solomon and sent to dwell in the city of Anathoth which belonged to the sons of Aaron. 1Ki 2:26; 1Ch 6:60. In 1Ki 4:4, Abiathar is named with Zadok as priests (not the priests); though deposed, Abiathar was still a priest. There is a difficulty in 2Sa 8:17 and 1Ch 18:16 where ’Ahimelech (or Abimelech) the son of Abiathar’ is named as priest with Zadok in the time of David. Some suppose that the names should be transposed, and that Abiathar is meant; but this Ahimelech may have been a son of the above-named Abiathar (it not being at all unusual to name a son after his grandfather) and for some reason he is mentioned in these passages as priest instead of his father. He may have been a more worthy man than his father, who was thrust out of the priesthood for his own sin, though it fulfilled the prophecy concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh. 1Sa 2:31-36; 1Ki 2:27. Our Lord in Mar 2:26 speaks of Abiathar as high priest, in connection with David eating the showbread, doubtless because he afterwards attained to that office.

ABIATHAR.—The son of Ahimelech, the son of Ahitub, the son of Phinehas, the son of Eli. He is mentioned in Mar 2:25-26 ‘Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread?’ The Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 , however, translates, ‘when Abiathar was high priest.’ The reference is evidently to 1 Samuel 21, where, according to the Hebrew text, Ahimelech gives David the sacred bread. There is thus a discrepancy between the two passages. The facts are these:—The Authorized Version , cited above, follows the reading of A and C (ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως), Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 follows that of B and א (which omit the article) and the Vulgate (‘sub Abiathar principe sacerdotum’). The clause is omitted altogether by ^{D [Note: Deuteronomist.]} . In the Massoretic Text of 1 Samuel 21, 22 and in Psa 52:2 (title) the high priest is Ahimelech the son of Ahitub and the father of David’s friend Abiathar. In the Greek text of all these passages, however, the name is Abimelech. In 2Sa 8:17 and 1Ch 24:6 Ahimelech (in 1Ch 18:16 Abimelech) the son of Abiathar is priest along with Zadok, but it is generally supposed that Abiathar the son of Ahimelech is meant. Ahimelech is usually held to be identical also with Ahijah the son of Ahitub of 1Sa 14:3; 1Sa 14:18.

The discrepancy between Mar 2:26 and 1 Samuel 21 f. has been sought to be accounted for in several ways. It may readily be due to a mere lapsus memoriae or calami, Abiathar, David’s high priest, being a much more familiar figure than his father, just as in Jer 27:1 ‘Jehoiakim’ is a slip for Zedekiah. It is not impossible that father and son may each have borne both names, according to Arab usage, Abiathar corresponding to the Arab^{. [Note: Arabic.]} kunyah, and Ahimelech being the ism or lakab, or name proper. It has been suggested that the reference in St. Mark is not to 1 Samuel 21 at all, but to some later unrecorded incident, such as might have occurred during the flight from Absalom. But this is very improbable.^{* [Note: Swete (St. Mark, ad loc.) suggests that the clause ἐτὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως, which is peculiar to Mark, may be an editorial note.]}

T. H. Weir.

By: Louis Ginzberg

A Palestinian amora, the contemporary of R. Judah (217-299) and of his successor, R. Ḥisda, the head of the Sura Academy, with both of whom Abiathar maintained a correspondence. The great number of Babylonian students who thronged to the Palestinian schools aroused his displeasure and induced him to remonstrate in a letter to Judah, the head of the Babylonian Jews (Giṭ. 6b). The reason of his displeasure was that the Babylonian students generally married before graduating (Ḳid. 29b, where Rashi's opinion is preferable to that of the Tosafot), and when they left for Palestine their wives and children became a burden on the community. He quoted in this connection Joel, iv. 3 (iii. 3, A. V.), and harsh as the parallel may seem, it is not unjustified (Giṭ. 6b). Thereupon R. Judah declared the emigration from Babylonia to Palestine to be a religious offense, but his denunciations were of no avail (Ket. 111a). Abiathar's letter to R. Ḥisda, the successor of R. Judah (Giṭ. l.c.), shows that the close connection between the Babylonian students and Palestinian teachers did not end with the declaration of R. Judah. Abiathar was revered as a model of piety and holiness, and the Babylonians believed that he was in spiritual communication with the prophet Elijah (see Giṭ. l.c. In the Midrash he is mentioned in Gen. R. lxxxviii. 2. Concerning his Haggadah, see Bacher, "Ag. Pal. Amor." iii. 563, 564).

ABIATHAR.—Son of Ahimelech, who was head of the family of priests in charge of the sanctuary at Nob (1Sa 21:1). All except Abiathar were massacred by Saul (1Sa 22:20). When the rest obeyed the king’s summons, he may have remained at home to officiate. On hearing of the slaughter he took refuge with David, carrying with him the oracular ephod (1Sa 23:6; see also 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 30:7). Abiathar and Zadok accompanied the outlaw in his prolonged wanderings. During Absalom’s rebellion they and their sons rendered yeoman service to the old king (2Sa 15:17). At 2Sa 8:17 (so also 1Ch 18:16 [where, moreover, ‘Abimelech’ should be Ahimelech] 1Ch 24:6) the names of Abiathar and his father have been transposed. Abiathar’s adhesion to Adonijah (1Ki 1:7; 1Ki 1:19; 1Ki 1:25) was of great importance, not only because of his position as priest, but also owing to his long friendship with king David. Solomon, therefore, as soon as he could safely do it, deposed Abiathar from the priesthood, warned him that any future misconduct would entail capital punishment, and relegated him to the seclusion of Anathoth (1Ki 2:26). His sons (2Sa 8:17) lost the priestly office along with their father (1Ki 2:27; cf. 1Sa 2:27-36). At Mar 2:26 the erroneous mention of Abiathar is due to his having been so intimately associated with the king in days subsequent to the one mentioned.

J. Taylor.

(Hebrew ebhyathar, Father of plenty, or, the great one is father).Descendant of Achimelech, Achitob, Phinees, Heli, Ithamar, Aaron, a high priest who escaped from the slaughter at Nob, went to David in his banishment (1 Samuel 22:20-23; 23:6) and assisted him with his advice (1 Samuel 23:9-14; 30:7). Together with the high priest Sadoc, he assisted at the transportation of the ark to Jerusalem (1 Chronicles 15:11, 12), and tried to follow David in his flight (2 Samuel 15:24), but instead aided him by counsel (2 Samuel 15:29-36; 17:15 sq.; 19:11; 1 Chronicles 27:34). He favoured Adonias (1 Kings 1:7, 19, 25, 42), and was banished by Solomon to Anathoth (1 Kings 2:22-27), thus completing the ruin of the house of Ithamar (1 Samuel 2:30-36; 3:10-14). As to II K., viii, 17, see Commentaries.-----------------------------------A.J. MAAS The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume ICopyright © 1907 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, March 1, 1907. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., CensorImprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

a-bı̄´a-thar, ab-i-ā´thar (אביתר, ’ebhyāthār, “father of super-excellence,” or, “the super-excellent one is father.” With changed phraseology these are the explanations commonly given, though “a father remains” would be more in accord with the ordinary use of the stem yāthar. The pious Abiathar was still conscious that he had a Father, even after the butchery of his human relatives):

1. The Biblical Account

The Scriptures represent that Abiathar was descended from Phinehas the son of Eli, and through him from Ithamar the son of Aaron; that he was the son of Ahimelech the head priest at Nob who, with his associates, was put to death by King Saul for alleged conspiracy with David; that he had two sons, Ahimelech and Jonathan, the former of whom was, in Abiathar’s lifetime, prominent in the priestly service (1Sa 21:1-9; 1Sa 22:7; 2Sa 8:17; 2Sa 15:27; 1Ch 18:16; 1Ch 24:3, 1Ch 24:6, 1Ch 24:31). See AHIMELECH; AHITUB.

Abiathar escaped from the massacre of the priests at Nob, and fled to David, carrying the ephod with him. This was a great accession to David’s strength. Public feeling in Israel was outraged by the slaughter of the priests, and turned strongly against Saul. The heir of the priesthood, and in his care the holy ephod, were now with David, and the fact gave to his cause prestige, and a certain character of legitimacy. David also felt bitterly his having been the unwilling cause of the death of Abiathar’s relatives, and this made his heart warm toward his friend. Presumably, also, there was a deep religious sympathy between them.

Abiathar seems to have been at once recognized as David’s priest, the medium of consultation with Yahweh through the ephod (1Sa 22:20-23; 1Sa 23:6, 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 30:7, 1Sa 30:8). He was at the head of the priesthood, along with Zadok (1Ch 15:11), when David, after his conquests (1Ch 13:5; compare 2 Sam 6), brought the ark to Jerusalem. The two men are mentioned together as high priests eight times in the narrative of the rebellion of Absalom (2Sa 15:24), and are so mentioned in the last list of David’s heads of departments (2Sa 20:25). Abiathar joined with Adonijah in his attempt to seize the throne (1 Ki 1:7-42), and was for this deposed from the priesthood, though he was treated with consideration on account of his early comradeship with David (1Ki 2:26, 1Ki 2:27). Possibly he remained high priest emeritus, as Zadok and Abiathar still appear as priests in the lists of the heads of departments for Solomon’s reign (1Ki 4:4). Particularly apt is the passage in Psa 55:12-14, if one regards it as referring to the relations of David and Abiathar in the time of Adonijah.

There are two additional facts which, in view of the close relations between David and Abiathar, must be regarded as significant. One is that Zadok, Abiathar’s junior, is uniformly mentioned first, in all the many passages in which the two are mentioned together, and is treated as the one who is especially responsible. Turn to the narrative, and see how marked this is. The other similarly significant fact is that in certain especially responsible matters (1 Ch 24; 1Ch 18:16; 2Sa 8:17) the interests of the line of Ithamar are represented, not by Abiathar, but by his son Ahimelech. There must have been something in the character of Abiathar to account for these facts, as well as for his deserting David for Adonijah. To sketch his character might be a work for the imagination rather than for critical inference; but it seems clear that though he was a man worthy of the friendship of David, he yet had weaknesses or misfortunes that partially incapacitated him.

The characteristic priestly function of Abiathar is thus expressed by Solomon: “Because thou barest the ark of the Lord Yahweh before David my father” (1Ki 2:26). By its tense the verb denotes not a habitual act, but the function of ark-bearing, taken as a whole. Zadok and Abiathar, as high priests, had charge of the bringing of the ark to Jerusalem (1Ch 15:11). We are not told whether it was again moved during the reign of David. Necessarily the priestly superintendence of the ark implies that of the sacrifices and services that were connected with the ark. The details in Kings indicate the existence of much of the ceremonial described in the Pentateuch, while numerous additional Pentateuchal details are mentioned in Ch.

A priestly function much emphasized is that of obtaining answers from God through the ephod (1Sa 23:6, 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 30:7). The word ephod (see 1Sa 2:18; 2Sa 6:14) does not necessarily denote the priestly vestment with the Urim and Thummim (e.g. Lev 8:7, Lev 8:8), but if anyone denies that this was the ephod of the priest Abiathar, the burden of proof rests upon him. This is not the place for inquiring as to the method of obtaining divine revelations through the ephod.

Abiathar’s landed estate was at Anathoth in Benjamin (1Ki 2:26), one of the cities assigned to the sons of Aaron (Jos 21:18).

Apart from the men who are expressly said to be descendants of Aaron, this part of the narrative mentions priests three times. David’s sons were priests (2Sa 8:18). This is of a piece with David’s carrying the ark on a new cart (2 Sam 6), before he had been taught by the death of Uzza. “And also Ira the Jairite was priest to the king” (2Sa 20:26 the English Revised Version). “And Zabud the son of Nathan was priest, friend of the king” (1Ki 4:5 the English Revised Version). These instances seem to indicate that David and Solomon had each a private chaplain. As to the descent and function of these two “priests” we have not a word of information, and it is illegitimate to imagine details concerning them which bring them into conflict with the rest of the record.

2. Critical Opinions Concerning Abiathar

No one will dispute that the account thus far given is that of the Bible record as it stands. Critics of certain schools, however, do not accept the facts as thus recorded. If a person is committed to the tradition that the Deuteronomic and the priestly ideas of the Pentateuch first originated some centuries later than Abiathar, and if he makes that tradition the standard by which to test his critical conclusions, he must of course regard the Biblical account of Abiathar as unhistorical. Either the record disproves the tradition or the tradition disproves the record. There is no third alternative. The men who accept the current critical theories understand this, and they have two ways of defending theories against the record. In some instances they use devices for discrediting the record; in other instances they resort to harmonizing hypotheses, changing the record so as to make it agree with theory. Without here discussing these matters, we must barely note some of their bearings in the case of Abiathar.

For example, to get rid of the testimony of Jesus (Mar 2:26) to the effect that Abiathar was high priest and that the sanctuary at Nob was “the house of God,” it is affirmed that either Jesus or the evangelist is here mistaken. The proof alleged for this is that Abiathar’s service as priest did not begin till at least a few days later than the incident referred to. This is merely finical, though it is an argument that is sometimes used by some scholars.

Men affirm that the statements of the record as to the descent of the line of Eli from Ithamar are untrue; that on the contrary we must conjecture that Abiathar claimed descent from Eleazar, his line being the alleged senior line of that family; that the senior line became extinct at his death, Zadok being of a junior line, if indeed he inherited any of the blood of Aaron. In making such affirmations as these, men deny the Bible statements as resting on insufficient evidence, and substitute for them other statements which, confessedly, rest on no evidence at all.

All such procedure is incorrect. Many are suspicious of statements found in the Books of Chronicles; that gives them no right to use their suspicions as if they were perceptions of fact. Supposably one may think the record unsatisfactory, and may be within his rights in thinking so, but that does not authorize him to change the record except on the basis of evidence of some kind. If we treat the record of the times of Abiathar as fairness demands that a record be treated in a court of justice, or a scientific investigation, or a business proposition, or a medical case, we will accept the facts substantially as they are found in Samuel and Kings and Chronicles and Mk.

When Saul ordered the slaughter of Ahimelech and the other priests at Nob, only one person escaped, and that was Ahimelech’s son, Abiathar (1Sa 22:18-20). He joined David and the others who were fleeing from Saul, and acted as priest for them (1Sa 23:6; 1Sa 23:9; 1Sa 30:7).

Later, when David became king, Abiathar and another priest, Zadok, became part of David’s royal court (2Sa 8:17). At the time of Absalom’s rebellion, when David was forced to flee Jerusalem, the two priests stayed behind to become spies on David’s behalf (2Sa 15:24-29; 2Sa 15:35; 2Sa 19:11). At the time of Adonijah’s rebellion, however, the two took different sides, Abiathar supporting Adonijah, and Zadok supporting Solomon. Upon becoming king, Solomon promoted Zadok to chief priest, but sent Abiathar into exile (1Ki 1:5-8; 1Ki 1:43-45; 1Ki 2:26; 1Ki 2:35).