Resolving Bible Contradictions: Abiathar's Father

Context

The 4th contradiction listed on the BibViz website is: "Abiathar's Father"

The alleged contradiction is as follows:


Abiathar was the son of Ahimelech

• 1 Samuel 22:20 - "And one of the sons of Ahimelech the son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped, and fled after David.
• 1 Samuel 23:6 - "And it came to pass, when Abiathar the son of Ahimelech fled to David to Keilah, [that] he came down [with] an ephod in his hand.

Abiathar was the father of Ahimelech

• 2 Samuel 8:17 - "And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, [were] the priests; and Seraiah [was] the scribe;
• 1 Chronicles 18:16 - "And Zadok the son of Ahitub, and Abimelech the son of Abiathar, [were] the priests; and Shavsha was scribe;
• 1 Chronicles 24:6 - "And Shemaiah the son of Nethaneel the scribe, [one] of the Levites, wrote them before the king, and the princes, and Zadok the priest, and Ahimelech the son of Abiathar, and [before] the chief of the fathers of the prists and Levites: one principal household being take for Eleazar, and [one] taken for Ithamar.

Argument
It is claimed that Abiathar cannot be both the father and the son of Ahimelech.

Reflection
There are many possible solutions to this alleged contradiction.

Two Ahimelechs
It is possible that (as per the below family tree image), there were two Abiathars, a grandfather and Grandson with the same name.  This is a highly plausible option if we consider family naming conventions still in use today, where children / grandchildren are named after their parents / grandparents, or even have a first second name (i.e. Abiathar Joshua or Joshua Abiathar) that is the name of a parent / grandparent.

Two Abiathars and Ahimelechs
An alternative in a similar manner is that there could be two Ahimelechs as well as two Abiathars which would look like this:

Same Name
A third option is that both have the same name - Ahimelech Abiathar (or Abiathar Ahimelech).  It could be that the Chronicler and the author of Samuel approached the names for each of these differently.

A co-reign / succession
Two people could have co-reigned together with Zadok, or one could have succeeded another and taken his name (kind of like a confirmation saint's name is used as a reference name for people within some churches).

One in Spirit and Power of the Other
One person could have been nicknamed after another, kind of like when John the Baptist is said to have come in the Spirit and Power of Elijah, or that Elijah has come (cf. Matthew 17:12-13, Mark 9:11-13, Luke 1:17).

Abiathar recognised as the greater
One referred to as the other, because of the pre-eminence of the other during this time.

Conclusion
I think one of the first two of these is the strongest of the options, but the plausibility of any of these demonstrate a no real contradiction exists.

Resolving Bible Contradictions - How many sons did Abraham have?

Context

The 3rd contradiction listed on the BibViz website is: "How many sons did Abraham have?"

The alleged contradiction is as follows:

• Abraham had only one son.
• "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son]," Hebrews 11:17
• "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou loves, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of." Genesis 22:2
• Abraham had more than one son:
• "And Hagar bore Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael." Genesis 16:15
• "For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.  And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac." Genesis 21:2-3
• "Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name [was] Keturah.  And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah." Genesis 25:1-2
• "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman." Galatians 4:22.

Argument

The claimed contradiction is that the verses from Hebrews 11 and Genesis 22 contradict with the verses from Genesis 16, 21 and Galatians 4.

Reflection

The first point to note is that Abram and Abraham are the same person in Genesis.  Likewise,  Sarai and Sarah are the same person.  God changes both of their names during the narrative.

In order to review this proposed contradiction, it helps to take the verses used and list them in chronological order:

• Genesis 16:15 - "And Hagar bore Abram a son: and Abram called his son's name, which Hagar bare, Ishmael."
• Genesis 21:2-3 - "For Sarah conceived, and bare Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.  And Abraham called the name of his son that was born unto him, whom Sarah bare to him, Isaac."
• Genesis 22:2 - "And he said, Take now thy son, thine only [son] Isaac, whom thou loves, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of."
• Genesis 25:1-2 - "Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name [was] Keturah.  And she bare him Zimran, and Jokshan, and Medan, and Midian, and Ishbak, and Shuah."
• Galatians 4:22 - "For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman."
• Hebrews 11:17 - "By faith Abraham, when he was tried, offered up Isaac: and he that had received the promises offered up his only begotten [son],"

In Chronological order in the story, we can observe the following:

• Abraham certainly has two sons prior to Genesis 22:2, but has other children later in Genesis 25.
• Hebrews 11:17 is commenting on Genesis 22, and thus it could be argued is not considering what came later in the story.  Rather, Hebrews 11:17 is making a point based on this point of the Abrahamic narrative.
• Galatians 4:22 (in its context) is likewise speaking on the two sons of Abraham that were born to him prior to Genesis 25 - Isaac and Ishmael.  At this time, there were only two sons to Abraham, the others only coming in Genesis 25.

This indicates that Galatians 4 (which is providing a commentary on the relationship between Isaac and Ishmael) is not incorrect to claim that Abraham had two sons, as at that point in time he did only have two sons.

The question then follows, is it incorrect to say that Abraham had one son?

There are at least three possible solutions:

1. Isaac is the only son of Abraham via Sarai / Sarah, and is in this sense his only begotten son (by Sarah). 
• A child to be born by Sarah was prophesied by God, but God explicitly says that Ishmael is not this child (Genesis 17:15-22).
• The word 'Only-begotten" used in Hebrews 11:17 (Monogenes) provides the sense of the Hebrew word 'yacht' used in the text of Genesis.  'Monogenes' has two primary definitions, "pertaining to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship" and "pertaining to being the only one of its kind or class, unique in kind". [Source: Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (BAGD, 3rd Edition)].  In this sense, Isaac truly is an only-begotten son, but Ishmael is not.
• Note: this sense also applies in the event of later children born to Keturah.
2. Ishmael had been sent away with his mother by Abraham.  It could be that this represents a disownment of him as a son (though this is not explicitly said nor implied).
3. Since Hagar was a concubine, her son Ishmael may not have been considered a legitimate son (i.e. he was legitimately a bastard, having been born outside of wedlock).  Isaac is therefore at this point in the story the only-begotten son of Abraham, in the sense that he is the only son begotten legitimately in wedlock to Sarah.

In any of these scenarios, Isaac can truly be said to be Abraham's only-begotten son.

Conclusion
Abraham had both one son (by Sarah) and many sons (by Sarah, Hagar and Keturah).  Isaac, Sarah's son, is the only-begotten son of Abraham (by Sarah) in a unique sense, but he is not his only son.  The claim that these passages contradict is a false dichotomy.

Resolving Bible Contradictions - Was Abraham Justified by Faith or Works?

Context

The second contradiction listed on the BibViz website is: "Was Abraham Justified by Faith or Works?"

It is claimed that two contradictory views are proposed in the Bible:

• He was justified by faith:
• "For if Abraham were justified by works, he hath [whereof] to glory; but not before God." Romans 4:2
• He was justified by works:
• "Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?" James 2:21

Argument

It is claimed that Romans 4:2 and James 2:21 contradict each other about how Abraham was justified.  The latter claims that works justified Abraham, whereas the former claims works do not provide a point of boasting for Abraham before God, and it was his faith that justified him.

Reflection

This answer is incorrect because it suffers from the fallacy of equivocation.

Protestants say that the fallacy of equivocation occurs in this question because the word 'faith' has different uses in the contexts of the books Romans and James.  Catholics however believe it is the word 'works' that has different meanings in each book.

The nuances are made clearer by looking at Abraham's life in more detail:

• In Genesis 12:1-4, at age 75, Abraham has faith, in God and so he obeys God and leaves his hometown to go the the place God calls him.  This is confirmed by Hebrews 11:8.
• In Genesis 15:6, Abraham (now 85), after ten years of obedience again / still has faith and is counted as justified / righteous before God.
• In Genesis 22, Abraham (now circa 110) is justified by works and the scripture of Genesis 15:6 is fulfilled.  This is confirmed by James 2:14-26.

Christians usually summarise this as follows:

1. Abraham first has faith and obeys God's call in Genesis 12.
2. Ten years later, Abraham is declared as justified by God because he has faith.  This faith is not on the basis of works of the Mosaic law, which at this time did not exist.  Where there is no law, there is no transgression (Romans 4:15).
3. This justification is then either:
1. A redeclaration of the justification resulting from Abraham's faith in Genesis 12 (held by some Protestants)
2. The point of Abraham's justification, with prior faith not being deemed as justifying (held by people such as James White, the Reformed Churches, other Protestants)
3. A further infusion of the justification that occurred in Genesis 12, i.e. justification is a process (held by Catholics, Greek Orthodox churches, etc.)
4. A restoration of Abraham's justification after losing it due to sin (held by some minority catholic groups, etc.).
4. Abraham's works in Genesis 22 are then either:
• The fruit of his justifying faith (Protestant), or
• Works of love that are not works of the law and thus contribute to the Abraham's process of justification.

Conclusion

Whichever view is correct, all four demonstrate that a simple quotation of two sentences, from two different books of the bible, using different definitions for at least one of the terms used, does not outline a contradiction.  Instead, all four demonstration a fallacy of equivocation has occurred (either in the word 'faith' or 'work').  

The answer therefore fails to give sufficient proof that a contradiction has occurred.  Furthermore, the evidence indicates that there are a number of possible solutions to this proposed contradiction, and that no contradiction actually exists.