Koine Foundations

---

Did Jesus Name the Wrong High Priest?
Mark 2:26 and the Problem of Abiathar.

Mark 2:26 vs. 1 Samuel 21:1

²⁵ And he [Jesus] 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: ²⁶ 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?” (Mark 2:25-26 ESV)

¹ Then David came to Nob, to Ahimelech the priest… ⁶ the priest gave him the holy bread, for there was no bread there but the bread of the Presence… (1 Samuel 21:1a, 6a ESV)

The Issue: Abiathar or Ahimelech?

Mark 2:25-26 contains a well-known issue that many skeptics of the Bible claim is an unsolvable error that proves that the Bible is not inerrant. It is an issue that has perplexed Bible scholars and bothered Christians ever since the Gospel of Mark was first circulated and read.

The issue is the highlighted phrase “in the time of Abiathar the high priest”. According to 1 Samuel 21:1-6, the incident with David occurred when Ahimelech was the high priest. However, Jesus appears to name Abiathar as the high priest, who was the son of Ahimelech. Abiathar later became the high priest under King David after his father Ahimelech was killed by order of King Saul. You can read the entire account in 1 Samuel chapters 21 and 22.

So, was Jesus (or Mark the author) wrong about who the high priest was when David ate the bread provided by the high priest? Or is there a reasonable explanation of why Jesus names Abiathar rather than Ahimelech?

Background

Mark 2:25-26 is part of a larger account that is recorded in Mark 2:23-28. Parallel accounts are recorded in Matthew 12:1–8 and Luke 6:1–5 (see Parallel Accounts Comparison below [P]). Placing these two verses in their context, Jesus is debating with the Pharisees over what they saw as a violation of the Sabbath regulations. The Pharisees had observed Jesus’ disciples walking through grainfields, plucking and eating the grain on the Sabbath. As Mark writes in verses 2:23 and 24:

²³ One Sabbath he [i.e., Jesus] was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain. ²⁴ And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?” (Mark 2:23-24 ESV)

Plucking and eating grain from a field that did not belong to them was not the issue. The Old Testament allowed this in the case of hunger:

If you go into your neighbor’s standing grain, you may pluck the ears with your hand, but you shall not put a sickle to your neighbor’s standing grain. (Deuteronomy 23:25 ESV)

The issue was that the disciples did it on the Sabbath. Plucking grain was interpreted as reaping. Reaping was work. Work was prohibited on the Sabbath:

Six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest. In plowing time and in harvest you shall rest. (Exodus 34:21 ESV)

The Pharisees viewed the actions of the disciples as violating the Sabbath by working and they questioned Jesus about it. Jesus’ response is based on the incident in the Old Testament where David obtained bread from the high priest while fleeing from King Saul. However, Jesus refers to Abiathar rather than Ahimelech as the high priest.

The Greek text that causes the issue is:

Greek Text:	ἐπὶ	Ἀβιαθὰρ	ἀρχιερέως
Transliteration: [1]	epi	Abiathar	archiereōs
Translation:	in the time of	Abiathar	the high priest

As Lane notes in his commentary, the historical difficulty with Jesus’ naming Abiathar rather than Ahimelech was felt early on in church history and probably resulted in several variants in the Greek manuscripts. [2]

• The words ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως are absent from some Greek manuscripts, thus removing the phrase, “in the time of Abiathar the high priest”. This obvious ‘correction’ removed the supposed error and harmonized the account with those in Matthew and Luke. [3] [4] [5]
• Some Greek manuscripts have the article τοῦ (“the”) inserted before ἀρχιερέως (“high priest”) [6], which changes the meaning to “in the time of Abiathar, the one who (later) became high priest”, bringing it into alignment with 1 Samuel 21. [3] [5]

However, it is the opinion of textual scholars that the original Greek text should read as ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως.

Solutions

Presented below are some of the major proposed solutions to this issue with my comments.

Solution 1: The verse contains an unresolvable error. [Link]
Solution 2: Both priests bore the same name. [Link]
Solution 3: Abiathar actually was a high priest. [Link]
Solution 4: The Greek means “in the passage about”. [Link]
Solution 5: The title means “chief priest” rather than “high priest”. [Link]
Solution 6: The phrase is a temporal and proleptic reference. [Link]

Solution 1: The verse contains an unresolvable error.

One solution is to concede that the verse contains an error. Either:

• Jesus was wrong: Jesus made an error about the identity of the high priest,
• The source was wrong: The error arose somewhere in the oral tradition passed down to Mark.
• Or Mark was wrong: Mark made an error when he wrote the Gospel.

If you look at the parallel accounts in Matthew and Luke, you will observe that they do not include the reference to Abiathar.

Matthew 12:3-4	Mark 2:25-26	Luke 6:13-4
3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him:	25 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:	3 And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him:
4 how he entered the house of God * and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?”	26 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?”	4 how he entered the house of God * and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?”

Some scholars argue that the fact that both Matthew and Luke omit the reference to Abiathar, implies that they recognized it as a problem. [7] However, it is normal for them to leave out details like time and place references where Mark includes them in order to simplify or condense Mark’s narrative. [8]

Some suggest that the error is due to the close connection of David and Abiathar, who was a well-known priest [9], or because the event became associated in popular memory with the priesthood of Abiathar. [10]

Abiathar was more well known than Ahimelech because he became King David’s high priest and later supported David when his son Absalom tried to overthrow him. However, Abiathar also betrayed Solomon by supporting Adonijah’s claim to the throne after David’s death and was removed from his position as high priest by Solomon.

Regarding the error originating with Jesus, William Bowles notes in his extensive blog article on this issue:

That Jesus was in error in his citation of Scripture has been rather difficult for most interpreters to accept, given that even highly skeptical scholars would grant that we can know with a good degree of historical certainty that Jesus was a knowledgeable teacher well-versed in the Hebrew Scriptures. In every other place in the four Gospels where Jesus cites Scripture, he does so with a command of the text that would indicate an intimate knowledge not only of the entire Old Testament narrative but of the details of numerous individual pericopes, which he would have not only been able to read but also recite from memory. [11]

If Jesus made the error, or it arose in oral tradition, it is difficult to account for why this easily recognized error was not corrected or removed. It was over 30 years from the time Jesus said it until the time Mark wrote it down in his Gospel. In any case, if this truly is an error, we can only speculate about where it originated.

However, for those who hold to the inerrancy of the Bible, there is no reason to concede this. There is, I believe, a good explanation for the so-called problem in Mark 2:26. In fact, there are several possible solutions that point to Jesus’ statement being correct, so that one does not have to immediately assume He made an error. These are explained as Solutions 4, 5 and 6.

Solution 2: Ahimelech and Abiathar, father and son, both bore both names.

A solution first proposed by some early church Fathers was that Ahimelech and Abiathar both bore the same names. They found support for this in the fact that Abiathar is called the son of Ahimelech in 1 Samuel 22:20, but Ahimelech is called the son of Abiathar in 2 Samuel 8:17 and 1 Chronicles 18:16.

Therefore, when Jesus uses the name Abiathar in Mark 2:26, he is referring to the Ahimelech mentioned in 1 Samuel 21:1 by his other name Abiathar.

However, this solution is a weak possibility, because it is not clear who the reference is to in the 2 Samuel 8:17 and 1 Chronicles 18:16 passages that refer to Ahimelech as the son of Abiathar (rather than Abiathar as the son of Ahimelech). Some scholars believe these verses actually refer to a son of Abiathar who was named after Abiathar’s dead father Ahimelech. [12] It was common then, as now, to name children after family ancestors. For example, in my own family we have four recent generations as follows:

Generation A: Charles Wesley J.
Generation B: Thomas Earl J.
Generation C: Thomas Earl J.
Generation D: Charles Wesley J.

So, the passages in the books of Samuel and Chronicles might be describing the family genealogy as:

Generation A: Ahitub (1 Samuel 22:20)
Generation B: Ahimelech (1 Samuel 22:20)
Generation C: Abiathar (1 Samuel 22:20)
Generation D: Ahimelech (2 Samuel 8:17 / 1 Chronicles 18:16)

If this is the correct understanding of the family genealogy, then the solution of common borne names is not the solution to Mark 2:26.

Solution 3: Abiathar actually was a high priest when David came for bread.

The Bible informs us that Abiathar did serve as a high priest under King David after this incident, so it is possible that Abiathar was already a high priest at the time when David came for bread, either sharing that responsibility with his father Ahimelech, or as the actual high priest rather than Ahimelech. This would make Jesus statement correct if He meant “when Abiathar was high priest”.

The position of high priest was determined by direct priestly descent from Aaron following the male line. Based on information in various places in the Old Testament, the line of descent for Abiathar appears to be:

Aaron
Ithamar
Eli
Phinehas
Ahitub
Ahimelech
Abiathar

The Old Testament does record one situation where the office of high priest was shared. Zadok and Abiathar shared the high priestly office under King David (2 Samuel 20:25). So, it is not impossible that Ahimelech and Abiathar shared the office of high priest at the time when David came for bread.

The difficulty with this solution is that the Old Testament never calls Ahimelech or Abiathar a high priest. Biblical scholars, both Jewish and Christian, assume they both held this role at some time based on other information. In the account in 1 Samuel 21, Ahimelech is always referred to simply as “Ahimelech the priest“. Abiathar is also referred to only as “the priest” whenever he is mentioned with a title.

In the Old Testament, the term “high priest” is used infrequently – it only occurs 21 times [13], found only in accounts from the time of Moses and Joshua over 400 years earlier, and then not again until accounts about 200 years after the David/Ahimelech encounter.

There were many priests in the town of Nob that served in the Tabernacle. In fact, 1 Samuel 22:18 tells us that 85 priests were killed in Nob as the result of a command by King Saul.

The priestly duties were divided into shifts and shared among family members which allowed for a rotation of duties. This ensured that the activities in the Tabernacle were continuously carried out. Ahimelech may have simply been the priest on duty at the time David arrived, and not necessarily the high priest. His son Abiathar may have already taken over that office.

So, it is possible that Abiathar shared high priestly duties with his father Ahimelech, or was the high priest instead of his father at the time when David came, and so could be legitimately referred to as a high priest by Jesus. However, this solution is speculation with no Biblical support, and I do not consider this to be a good solution to the issue in Mark 2:26.

Solution 4: The Greek phrase in Mark 2:26 usually translated as “in the time of Abiathar the high priest” can also be understood in the sense of “in the passage about Abiathar the high priest”.

This is a solution worth more consideration and is based on the idea that Mark’s intention has been misunderstood in the translation of Mark 2:26. [14] The strength of this solution is that a similar grammatical construction occurs in Mark 12:26, which is translated in most English translations along the lines of the following:

“And as for the dead being raised, have you not read in the book of Moses, in the passage about the bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?’” (Mark 12:26 ESV) [15]

If the same grammar is in play in Mark 2:26, then what Jesus said is something like:

²⁵ And Jesus says to the Pharisees, “Have you never read what David did when he was needy and hungry – he and those with him? ²⁶ How David entered the house of God, in the passage about Abiathar the high priest, and ate the Loaves of Presentation, which are not lawful to be eaten except by the priests, and he also gave them to those who were with him?” (Mark 2:25-26 My Translation) [16]

Both verses have the same grammatical construction for the phrase in question – it is a prepositional phrase that begins with the Greek preposition ἐπί / epi. This preposition had many shades of meaning, but could be used in a prepositional phrase that had a focus on proximity – the idea of “at” or “near”. Thus, it could be used to refer to the location of a Biblical passage as in Mark 12:26 (also see the parallel passage in Luke 20:37). [17] So, the intention of Jesus’ words in 2:26 might be to indicate the section of scripture where this particular event appears – “this account about David is near the passage about Abiathar the high priest”. Remember, that at the time of Jesus the scriptures were written on multiple scrolls and did not have chapter and verse numbers. Referring to an important element in the text was a way of referring to the appropriate scroll.

What strengthens this understanding is that in both Mark 2:25-26 and 12:26, Jesus begins by asking a similar question, “Have you not read?” [18] (See italicized text in the verses above.)

The weaknesses of this solution are summarized well by Lane, who is sympathetic toward this solution: [19]

• ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως / epi Abiathar archiereōs in Mark 2:26 is considerably separated from the words “have you not read,” unlike in Mark 12:26 where the epi phase comes right before the words “bush”. There are too many intervening words in Mark 2:26 to make this the natural reading.
• Abiathar is by no means the central element in the section of 1 Samuel so that it would be named for him.
• The introduction of Abiathar for the first time in the following chapter of 1 Samual 22 makes it unlikely that his name would be given to the section of scripture. Numerous instances in rabbinic scrolls indicate that a section was usually designated by a term which occurs early, not late, in the section.

Though this solution has some weaknesses, it is a good possibility as a solution to Mark 2:26.

Solution 5: Jesus uses the term ἀρχιερέως / archiereōs to refer to “a chief priest” rather than to “the high priest”.

This is a better solution to the issue.

ἀρχιερέως / archiereōs is the Greek word that is translated as “high priest” in all English translations of Mark 2:26.

Based on this solution, Mark 2:26 could be translated in one of these ways:

“David entered the house of God in the time of Abiathar a chief priest“
“David entered the house of God in the time of chief priest Abiathar”
“David entered the house of God when Abiathar was a chief priest“

Note that the last occurrence of the term “high priest” in the Old Testament is in reference to Eliashib the high priest mentioned in the book of Nehemiah. He served as high priest during the fifth century BC. He clearly held the position of being the chief religious official.

However, words change meaning over time. 400 years later in the time of the New Testament in the first century AD, the Greek word for high priest was more fluid in meaning. The word could refer to the singular head priest (“the high priest”) or to any priest of high rank (“a chief priest”), such as a prominent member of the Jewish Sanhedrin who was a priest. [20]

The Greek word occurs 122 times in the New Testament. Not counting Mark 2:26, it is used 54 times to refer to the high priest and 67 times to refer to chief priests. An interesting example is Matthew 26:3:

Then the chief priests and the elders of the people gathered in the palace of the high priest, whose name was Caiaphas. (Matthew 26:3 ESV)

The English phrases “chief priests” and “high priest” in this verse are a translation of the same Greek word. The difference in translation is simply due to context.

Someone might object that when the word is used to mean “chief priest” it is only used in the plural meaning “chief priests” as in the verse above. Therefore, this meaning does not apply to Mark 2:26 where Jesus uses the singular form of the word. However, there is one instance in the New Testament where the singular form is used to mean “chief priest” rather than “high priest”:

Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this… (Acts 19:14 NIV)

Jesus of course would use the Greek word in accordance with its meaning at His time, which included the idea of “chief priest” in the proper context. If used that way, His statement in Mark 2:26 is correct, because Abiathar was a chief priest being the Son of Ahimelech the high priest, serving as priest alongside his father, and next in line for the office of high priest. This is a good solution, but begs the question, “Why would Jesus refer to Abiathar rather than to Ahimelech?” Why even mention it in the first place? This will be addressed after Solution 6.

Solution 6: The phrase “in the time of Abiathar the high priest” is a temporal and proleptic reference.

Here again is Mark 2:25-26 with the troublesome phrase highlighted:

²⁵ 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: ²⁶ 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?” (Mark 2:25-26 ESV)

First, note what Jesus did not say:

• He did not say that David came to Abiathar. Jesus’ statement merely claims that the event in some way occurred in the time of Abiathar.
• He did not say that Abiathar gave bread to David. Jesus simply says that David ate the bread without stating or implying who gave it to him.

Next, let’s clarify exactly what the phrase “in the time of Abiathar” means. Let’s assume that Abiathar was not the high priest at the time when David came asking for bread, based on a plain reading of the relevant Old Testament passages.

Here again is the Greek behind the entire phrase:

Greek Text:	ἐπὶ	Ἀβιαθὰρ	ἀρχιερέως
Transliteration:	epi	Abiathar	archiereōs
Translation:	in the time of	Abiathar	the high priest

A few English translations render this as “when Abiathar was high priest”. However, “when” implies too much – that Abiathar was the high priest at the time of David’s visit. But that is not the case.

An examination of Mark’s Greek style demonstrates that whenever he wanted to express the idea of “when” an event specifically took place, Mark used other standard grammatical constructions, rather than a construction with ἐπί / epi, as used in this verse. [21] So the phrase does not mean “when Abiathar was high priest”.

On the other hand, many English translations render this as “in the time of Abiathar the high priest”. This is a better sense of what Jesus is saying as recorded by Mark, and is an acceptable meaning for how the preposition is used in this verse. [22] The meaning then is more along the lines of “in the days of Abiathar” or “in the era of Abiathar”.

Finally, how do we explain the use of the title “high priest” since Abiathar was not the high priest at the time?

This is simply an example of what grammarians call prolepsis, which is the practice of using a person’s future position/title when referring to a past action related to them. Prolepsis means anticipation.

It is common in biography. Here are some simple examples of proleptic statements:

“When President Washington was a child he could not tell a lie”.

“When President Lincoln was a boy, he worked as a rail splitter”.

Obviously, George was not the president when he was a child, and Abe was not the president when he split rails, but these are acceptable ways to identify them to the reader. These are understood as “who later became” president.

Jesus used normal devices of language, like prolepsis, to express Himself. So, his statement is true because the event did occur in the time of Abiathar (he was alive, present, and performing priestly duties) and he would later become a high priest. The high priest reference is proleptic and does not imply that Abiathar was already the high priest at the time of David’s visit.

A modern day example might be helpful to illustrate this.

Suppose I was writing a book about President Joe Biden’s foreign policy experience. I might make a statement like:

Have you not read how the U.S. special forces killed Osama bin Laden in the time of President Joe Biden?

If you remember your recent history, you know that bin Laden was actually killed when Barack Obama was president and Joe Biden was still vice-president. But that does not make my statement untrue. My focus in on President Biden, not President Obama, so his name is highlighted. The incident did occur during Biden’s time of service, but not during his tenure as president which came later, so the reference to “president” is proleptic.

Why Even Mention Abiathar?

Jesus’ statement in Mark 2:26 would not even be an issue for us if Jesus had not said it, or Mark had omitted it as Matthew and Luke did. Only a small percentage of what Jesus said and did are recorded in the New Testament (see John 21:25). So, what is recorded is important. Why did Jesus say it in the first place? And why would Jesus refer to Abiathar rather than to Ahimelech?

Here are a few observations that I believe are true:

• Jesus’ statement was intentional and served a purpose in His debate with the Pharisees. It was not an idle, throwaway line.
• It was not said to simply establish the historical setting of the event, otherwise he could have mentioned Ahimelech. The details about David alone are sufficient to identify the time and setting without a reference to a high priest. Everyone knew who David was.
• The religious leaders who were present understood that Abiathar was representative of a failed priesthood.
• Mark included it because it was important for the purpose of his narrative about Jesus. Conversely, Matthew and Luke omitted it because it was not important for the purposes of their narratives.

As with my President Biden example above, Jesus is placing the focus on Abiathar by mentioning him. Sadly, Abiathar’s long history of faithful service to King David was ultimately overshadowed by his failure. As mentioned above, he became King David’s faithful high priest after this event and later supported King David when his son Absalom tried to overthrow him. However, after David’s death, Abiathar betrayed King Solomon (and David) by supporting Adonijah’s claim to the throne over Solomon, who was David’s choice. Though he deserved death for his betrayal, Solomon spared his life due to his long service with David, but removed him from his position as high priest, ending his priestly career. He became a symbol of an unfaithful priesthood that lost God’s favor, infamous as the last high priest of his family line. He was the only high priest in the Old Testament to ever be deposed.

His mention by Jesus is thus a warning to the Pharisees and a way to draw them into the story. In the larger context of Mark, the religious leaders opposed Jesus and His authority at every opportunity. If they truly understood the scriptures, they should have recognized and welcomed Jesus as the Son of David and Messiah. And also as Lord of the Sabbath in this particular pericope.

The Pharisees who rejected Jesus were like Abiathar and would face a similar future rejection by God if they persisted in their opposition.

---

Copyright Notices

Scripture quotations marked ESV are from the Holy Bible, English Standard Version, copyright © 2001, 2007, 2011, 2016, 2025 by Crossway Bibles, a division of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.

Scripture quotations marked NIV are taken from the New International Version, Copyright © by Biblica, Inc. Used with permission. All rights reserved worldwide.

---

Footnotes

[1] Transliteration is writing Greek words using the closest corresponding letters of the English alphabet.

[2] Lane, William L. The New International Commentary on the New Testament, The Gospel According to Mark. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1974.) Page 116.

[3] Ibid. Page 116, footnote 85.

[4] Wessel, Walter W. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Volume 8, Mark. (Grand Rapids: The Zondervan Corporation, 1984.) Page 638.

[5] France, R. T. The Gospel of Mark, A Commentary on the Greek Text, The New International Greek Testament Commentary. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.) Page 142.

[6] The Greek would read: ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ τοῦ ἀρχιερέως. The Textus Receptus, which is the Greek text used for the King James Version, accepts this as the correct reading. However, it does not seem to affect the King James translation: “How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?” (KJV)

[7] Edwards, James R. The Pillar New Testament Commentary, The Gospel According to Mark. (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.) Page 95, footnote 42.

[8] This is a key observation supporting the theory of Markan Priority, which suggests that Matthew and Luke used Mark as a source when writing their own Gospels.

[9] Bruce, Alexander Balmain. The Expositor’s Greek Testament, Volume 1, The Synoptic Gospels. (Grand Rapids: William B Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990 Reprint.) Page 356.

[10] Edwards, op. cit., page 95.

[11] Bowles, William B. Revisiting “the Time of Abiathar the High Priest”: Interpretation, Methodology and Ways Forward for Understanding Mark 2:26 (https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/revisiting-the-time-of-abiathar-the-high-priest, Volume 27, Issue 2). (Themelios, a digital journal operated by The Gospel Coalition, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org).

[12] A number of commentators make a claim that goes something like this: “It is not surprising that Jesus was confused about who the high priest was because the Old Testament appears to be confused about Ahimelech and Abiathar.” Evidence cited for this is the apparent conflicting relationships in 1 Samuel 22:20; 23:6 (Ahimelech is the father of Abiathar) versus 2 Samuel 8:17 / 1 Chronicles 18:16 / 1 Chronicles 24:6 (Ahimelech is the son of Abiathar). But as Edwards notes, there appear to be two Ahimelechs, grandfather and grandson, with Abiathar between. [Edwards, op. cit., page 95, footnote 42.]

Lisle explains this claim as an equivocation fallacy: “Abiathar’s father was named Ahimelech, and Abiathar’s son was also named Ahimelech. That is, Abiathar named one of his sons after his own father, perhaps to honor the latter’s martyrdom. That the text refers to two different people, each named “Ahimelech” is obvious because they lived at different times. Namely, Ahimelech the son of Ahitub (1 Samuel 22:11) lived during the reign of King Saul and was killed by Saul before David became king of Israel (1 Samuel 22:16-19). However, Ahimelech the son of Abiathar served as priest during the time that David was king over Israel (2 Samuel 8:15, 17).” [Italics in original.] [Lisle, Jason. Keeping Faith in an age of Reason. (Master Books, A Division of New Leaf Publishing Group, 2017 by Jason Lisle.) Pages 45-46.]

[13] Before the David encounter it is only used 5 times in a general way in the Pentateuch. After the David encounter it is used as the title of only four high priests: Jehoida (1x), Hilkiah (4x), Eliashib (3x), and Joshua (8x).

[14] Lane, op. cit., page 116.

[15] “in the passage about the bush” translates a Greek prepositional phrase that begins with the preposition ἐπί / epi + a genitive case noun: ἐπὶ τοῦ βάτου / epi tou batou.

[16] “in the passage about Abiathar the high priest” translates a Greek prepositional phrase that begins with the preposition ἐπί / epi + a genitive case noun: ἐπὶ Ἀβιαθὰρ ἀρχιερέως / epi Abiathar archiereōs.

[17] BDAG: Bauer, Walter, Frederick W. Danker, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000). S.v. ἐπί, entry 2.a, page 363.

[18] Williams, Joel F. Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament: Mark. (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2020 by Joel F. Williams.) Page 54.

[19] Lane, op. cit., page 116, footnote 86. See also Williams, op. cit., page 55.

[20] BDAG, s.v. ἀρχιερεύς, page 139.

[21] Among many other uses, ἐπί / epi can be used as a temporal marker with an accusative case noun (when? or how long?); a genitive case noun (time within which an event or condition takes place); or a dative case noun (time at or during which). However, Mark expresses the idea of “when” by using other grammatical constructions like temporal adverbial participles, or the temporal particle ὅτε (“when”). Excluding Mark 2:26, there is no use of ἐπί / epi in a temporal construction in Mark that expresses the idea of “when”. By my count, Mark uses an ἐπί / epi construction 71 times.

[22] BDAG, s.v. ἐπί, entry 18, page 367. See Luke 3:2 and Acts 11:28 for similar uses of ἐπί.

---

Parallel Accounts Comparison [P]

For reference, here are the parallel accounts of this pericope shown side by side for comparison. Note that:

• Matthew, Mark, and Luke have similar material in the first four verses and the last verse.
• Matthew and Luke do not include the phrase referring to the high priest Abiathar in Mark 2:26 (highlighted).
• Matthew adds additional material in verses 5 to 7 that is not reported in Mark and Luke.
• Mark adds additional material in verse 27 that is not reported in Matthew and Luke.

Matthew 12:1–8 ESV	Mark 2:23-28 ESV	Luke 6:1–5 ESV
1 At that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath. His disciples were hungry, and they began to pluck heads of grain and to eat.	23 One Sabbath he was going through the grainfields, and as they made their way, his disciples began to pluck heads of grain.	1 On a Sabbath, while he was going through the grainfields, his disciples plucked and ate some heads of grain, rubbing them in their hands.
2 But when the Pharisees saw it, they said to him, “Look, your disciples are doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath.”	24 And the Pharisees were saying to him, “Look, why are they doing what is not lawful on the Sabbath?”	2 But some of the Pharisees said, “Why are you doing what is not lawful to do on the Sabbath?”
3 He said to them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, and those who were with him:	25 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:	3 And Jesus answered them, “Have you not read what David did when he was hungry, he and those who were with him:
4 how he entered the house of God and ate the bread of the Presence, which it was not lawful for him to eat nor for those who were with him, but only for the priests?	26 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?”	4 how he entered the house of God and took and ate the bread of the Presence, which is not lawful for any but the priests to eat, and also gave it to those with him?”
5 Or have you not read in the Law how on the Sabbath the priests in the temple profane the Sabbath and are guiltless?   6 I tell you, something greater than the temple is here.   7 And if you had known what this means, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the guiltless.
	27 And he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
8 For the Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”	28 So the Son of Man is lord even of the Sabbath.”	5 And he said to them, “The Son of Man is lord of the Sabbath.”