1. He was the only priest that survived Saul’s massacre.

2. He had the ephod.

None of this, of course, proves that Abiathar was high priest during the bread incident. (Of course, it doesn’t disprove that either.) Perhaps then, the defense slips back to the claim that Jesus identifies him as High Priest, but is only saying that the bread incident occurred in the time of Abiathar.

Isn’t it possible that David entered the temple when Abiathar was HIGH priest, but that the priest that served him was not the high priest, but another priest, Ahimilech, who was also the father of the high priest?

You might expect the older priest to have the higher rank. But it is not always so. Caiaphas was high priest when Jesus was crucified, but his father-in-law Annas was also alive at the time. Annas had himself been high priest in the past but continued to be priest after he stepped down from the high priesthood.

It is conceivable that Ahimilech was also once the high priest, but had stepped down (though that is not necessary at all). In any event the event took place while Ahimilech was a priest and his son, Abiathar, was high priest.

Obviously, there may be supporting passages regarding what terms in office Ahimilech and Abiathar held that undercut this harmonization. But nothing in these two passages is contradictory in the least.

Here is an analogy.

I might use the phrase “during Reagan’s time”. Because of his role as President, that would usually be taken to mean “during Reagan’s Presidency”. And there is nothing wrong with that. Suppose that I say “During Reagan’s time, Iran took American citizens hostage.” I’m _technically_ correct…Reagan was alive when the hostages were taken. But in most cases, we would really have expected me to say “During Carter’s time…”.

However, there are some cases where I could use the phrase “during Reagan’s time” and it would not mean “during Reagan’s presidency” and everyone would know that. Were I to say “During Reagan’s time the Soviet Union collapsed”, no one would feel the need to correct me. This is so, even though the Soviet Union collapsed during Bush 41’s presidency.

Why?

Reagan is seen as the most central figure in that collapse. Indeed, Reagan is so tightly connected to the Soviet Union’s collapse that were I to say “During Bush’s time, the Soviet Union collapsed”, some people might feel the need to correct me by saying something like “Well, during Bush’s _presidency_ it collapsed”.

Abiathar, not Ahimilech, is seen as David’s major priestly ally. It makes sense for Jesus to say that the bread incident occurred during his time. For all we know, it might have sounded strange to Jesus’ first century hearers for him to say anything else.

1. Jesus deliberately said Abiathar even knowing Ahimelech was the priest.
2. Jesus mistakenly said Abiathar.
3. Mark wrongly recorded Jesus as saying Abiathar.

As I’ve indicated, I feel 1 is unlikely. I wouldn’t really want to choose between the otiher two, though I would personally lean towards 3.

My question is whether 1 Samuel shows that Jesus was wrong when he said “epi Abiathar”; I’m asking which priest was involved.

It sounds like your question is whether 1 Samuel shows that Mark is wrong when he says that Jesus said “epi Abiathar”; you’re asking which priest Jesus said was involved.

I’ll have a think about which is the better question to ask; I can see a case for each.

Imagine that you know the Old Testament by heart, but you know nothing of the New Testament. If I told you that Jesus mentioned the bread incident, and that while doing so he also mentioned a high priest, you would surely expect (with about 99% confidence) that it would be Ahimelech.

(That is, assuming he really is infallible in his own right.)

I can see that carrying some weight, but not as being conclusive.

Re Acts: Good catch; I’ve corrected the citation.