Problem: Jesus names Abiathar as high priest when he wasn't

At one point fairly early on in his ministry, the synoptics record that Jesus was questioned about an apparent breach of the sabbath. This is Mark 2:25-26:

And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: 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?" (ESV)

The priest mentioned in the Old Testament is Abiathar's father, Ahimilech. This is 1 Samuel 21:1:

Then David came to Nob to Ahimelech the priest. And Ahimelech came to meet David trembling and said to him, "Why are you alone, and no one with you?" (ESV)

It certainly seems that either Jesus or Mark has made a mistake and named the wrong priest. However, it's just about possible to say that Jesus was not trying to name the priest involved, but rather wanted to specify the date, by specifying who was high priest at the time - Abiathar - even though this fact has nothing to do with the story. Of course, this isn't very satisfying, and I would consider this problem Serious on its own.

Nor is that the end of the matter. Abiathar, son of Ahimelech, is only introduced to the reader some time after the bread incident, at 1 Samuel 22:20. Bible scholars seem to agree that, although Abiathar was one of around 85 priests at this point, he was not yet a high priest. Abiathar is never described as a "high priest" in the Old Testament, but Bible scholars seem to infer that he became a high priest at 1 Chronicles 15:11-12 when he and one other priest are specially summoned to serve David and carry the Ark of the Covenant.

Since Abiathar was (apparently) not yet a high priest, it seems that even the overly charitable interpretation of Jesus' words doesn't work.

An unlikely solution

The apparent discrepancy is satisfactorily explained by interpreting the words in Mark as referring to the life-time of Abiathar, and not to the term of his holding the office of high priest.

This is not plausible. It's like saying "in the time of President Reagan" when you're referring to the 1960s. Yes, Reagan was alive at that point, but since he wasn't president, you wouldn't phrase it like that. (For my younger readers: Reagan was actually president in the 1980s.)

I would also note that, although infallibilist Bibles like the ESV and NIV translate the passage from Mark as above, the NRSV (which, unlike the others, seldom makes any effort to cover up contradictions) translates Mark 2:26 thus:

He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the bread of the Presence, which it is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and he gave some to his companions. (NRSV)

If correct, this would rule out the above solution entirely. Conservative Bible scholar Daniel B. Wallace writes that this is the "normal" translation.

The best solution?

Perhaps the best solution is to say that nothing in the Old Testament explicitly rules out Abiathar being a high priest at the time of the bread incident. But aside from the verse in Mark, there is just no reason whatsoever to think that Abiathar was already high priest, and it's still unclear why Jesus mentions him, since he is not involved in the story.

Tektonics suggests that, since Abiathar was a man of law, Jesus is emphasising that the incident in Nob occurred during a time of great respect for the law. It's possible, but a mistake on Mark's part is a much, much simpler explanation. He just mixed up the two men, Ahimelech and Abiathar.

Matthew and Luke, who both used Mark as a source, apparently both detected and eliminated the error, as shown by this comparison of the three synoptic gospels. They are all basically the same, but Matthew and Luke wisely delete the clause "in the time of Abiathar the high priest".