In Mark 2:23–28, why does our Lord say that Abiathar was high priest when David was fleeing Saul, when it was actually Ahimelech?

This text is from a letter written by David Gooding in 1998.

The problem arises, so it seems to me, because our Lord appears to imply that Abiathar was high priest at the time when David was fleeing from Saul, and was given the shewbread from the tabernacle, which was then at Nob. If this is indeed what our Lord implied, then we know that the implication goes against the facts given in 1 Samuel 21:1–6, where the priest in charge is said to have been Ahimelech.

Various explanations of this have been given, including Hunter's description of this as 'a slip of memory'. If Hunter's account of the matter is the right one, then one can rightly ask, 'But whose memory? The memory of Mark, or of Jesus?'.

But it seems to me that Hunter is making unduly heavy weather out of the question. To start with, no one doubts the fact that Abiathar was already a priest when David arrived at the tabernacle. First Samuel 22:11 points out that Saul subsequently summoned to his presence not only Ahimelech the priest, but 'all his father's house, the priests that were in Nob'; and 1 Samuel 22:18–21 adds that Saul had Ahimelech and all his sons, the priests, executed, and only Abiathar escaped.

The only difficulty, therefore, is the fact that our Lord refers to Abiathar as high priest instead of just simply priest; but there again, the difficulty is surely only an apparent difficulty. The Greek phrase in Mark 2:26 epi Abiathar archiereōs means in Greek 'in the time of high priest Abiathar', or 'in the days of high priest Abiathar'. The question, therefore, is whether the phrase 'in the time of high priest Abiathar' is meant literally and exactly to imply 'at the time when Abiathar was already high priest'.

I would suggest that our Lord is using the phrase in the same way as we commonly use such phrases in English. I could, for instance, remark that when Queen Elizabeth was a girl certain things happened. Actually, of course, Queen Elizabeth was never a girl; for when she was a girl she was not queen. But everybody would understand what I meant when I said 'when Queen Elizabeth was a girl'. Nobody would take me to mean that the event referred to happened when the Princess Elizabeth had already become queen; and anybody who insisted that my remark did literally imply that the events referred to happened when the princess was already a queen would be pedantic indeed.

Moreover, there is clear reason why our Lord should mention Abiathar's subsequent high priesthood in connection with the incident of David's eating the shewbread. Abiathar's father, Ahimelech, and all his brothers, who were also priests, were executed for their complicity in the act of giving David the shewbread; and as a result of this, Abiathar himself eventually became high priest. Certainly, according to the law, Abiathar would have become high priest the moment his father and the rest of his family were killed.

It seems to me, therefore, that neither our Lord nor Mark is guilty of a slip of memory. They are using language in the same way as we use it today, and to find a historical discrepancy here is a sign of undue pedantry.

Yours very sincerely in Christ,