Turkel [quoting Mark 2:26]:
And he said unto them, have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him?

The "Abiathar error" is a famous one among skeptics, who bounce this around like taffy. Abiathar, they sniff, was not high priest when David did this; David was before Ahimelech. We have previously provided an answer based on analysis from Casey's Aramaic Sources of Mark's Gospel, and we now expand on that here. 

Till:
It seems that the "sniffing" of skeptics is true, because Abiathar was not the high priest when the incident in question happened.  Does Turkel deny this?  I'll let readers judge which one of us has presented the more convincing case. 

Turkel:
The initial and simple answer notes that the verse in Mark says that this event took place "in the time of" Abiathar the high priest, which is not the same thing as saying that he was the one involved in the episode in question. This remains essentially correct but requires more detail.

Till:
In my reply, I showed that the intended meaning of the statement attributed to Jesus was that Abiathar was the priest whom David went in to when he entered the "house of God."  Robert "Snip-and-Skip" Turkel danced around this textual evidence and tried to justify it on his usual grounds that he is not obligated to reply to everything that I say. As I have explained in my second-round replies in the land-promise debate, I have never said that a debater should quote and/or respond to everything his opponents say.  I have said only that the reading audience should have the chance to read everything that both sides say.  That wasn't being done when Turkel refused to link his readers to his opponents' articles. Turkel is now linking, but he is also skipping a lot that I have said, apparently in hope that his readers won't remember the parts that he skipped. When I come to these parts, I will just reinsert what he skipped and ask him to meet his responsibility and answer it this time.

Turkel:
To begin, the description of Abiathar as "high priest" is not titular. Neither Ahimelech nor Abiathar are ever given the title in the OT,

Till:
This is certainly true.  The term "high priest" was not used in the Old Testament.  It wasn't applied even to Aaron.  Why the term was used in Mark 2:26 is anyone's guess.  The writer attributing the statement to Jesus perhaps thought that since the office of high priest existed in his time, it had also existed in the time of David.  Although I consider this "high priest" reference to be an error itself, the nonexistence of this office is only  incidental to bigger problems in the text, because as I showed in my first reply to Turkel and will apparently have to show again, the intended meaning of the statement attributed to Jesus was that Abiathar was the priest whom David went in to when he entered the "house of God."

Turkel:
though it is clear that Abiathar served as a leading priest (along with Zadok)

Till:
Abiathar served as "a leading priest" after the incident at Nob and after Saul had massacred Ahimelech and all the priests at Nob because of the aid that Ahimelech had given to David.  I defy Turkel to cite a single passage of scripture that even implied that Abiathar had any special prominence at the time of the incident at Nob.  He wasn't even mentioned in the Old Testament until after Saul's massacre of the priests at Nob.

Turkel:
 and Ahimelech may have ranked highly as well.

Till:
Ahimelech "may have ranked highly as well"?  Ahimelech was the priest whom David dealt with at the time of the incident.  If he had not "ranked highly" at the time, then surely he would not have made such an important decision on his own when he gave aid to David but would have consulted with whoever was the "ranking" priest.  Furthermore, when Saul heard what had happened, he called Ahimelech, not Abiathar or anyone else, before him to give an accounting of what he had done. No other priest was questioned at this time except Ahimelech. Saul ordered the massacre of Ahimelech, his "house," and all the priests at Nob (1 Sam. 22:11-19), but Abiathar "escaped and fled to David" (v:20).  It wouldn't have been very likely that Saul, who was bent on killing every priest at Nob, would have allowed the "ranking" priest to escape.

Turkel:
The word for "high priest" is archierus, a combination of hierus, or priest, and arche, a word most often meaning "beginning" but also meaning supreme in rank or order.

Till:
Turkel has made references to Greek again.  Isn't everybody impressed?  Now all he needs to do is explain to us what he has proved.  Would anyone deny that the term "high priest" as it was used then designated the priest who was supreme in rank?  That's part of the problem in this passage.  Abiathar obviously wasn't the priest who was supreme in rank at this time.  If he was, then Saul allowed the top dog at Nob to get away when the massacre started.  Furthermore, Abiathar was Ahimelech's son.  In view of the importance that the "Hebrew mind" attached to patriarchal prominence at the time of this incident, it is unlikely that a son would have ranked higher than his father in the priestly order.

Turkel:
Casey sees behind this language an Aramaic description too literally rendered in Greek:

Till:
Well, first of all, Casey assumes that the incident in Mark 2:26 even happened.  There is no way to prove that it did, so the only matter of concern is whether the incident as recorded in Greek is consistent with what is said elsewhere in the Bible about David's encounter with Ahimelech.  Anyway, I urge everyone to keep in mind Turkel's reference to Casey's speculation about "an Aramaic description" that was perhaps behind a statement that was rendered in Greek, because you will see Turkel whining and complaining later about "Till-spins" that I allegedly put on texts "to make [my] case sound worthwhile."

What about Turkel-spins or Casey-spins?  Are we supposed to assume that spins are all right just as long as they aren't "Till-spins"?

Turkel:
It does not mean Abiathar was "high priest" but indicates that he was a great priest, a renowned priest.

Till:
Turkel introduced Greek into this discussion, so let's take that ball and run with it.  The Greek word used in Mark 2:26 in reference to "Abiathar" was archiereus, and this was the same word that was used thirty-eight other times in the New Testament in reference to either Annas or Caiphas, or both, as "high priest."  I can find no other term in the New Testament that was used to refer to this office.  There is no reason to think, then, that the word used in reference to Abiathar had any intended meaning other than the meaning of the word when it was applied to the high priests officiating during the period covered by the gospels and the book of Acts.  The use of this term in reference to Abiathar would therefore be another indication that the writer of Mark wasn't too well informed in Old Testament matters.  He seemed not to know that there was no office of high priest at the time of the Nob incident, and he seemed not to know who the priest was that David dealt with at that time. 

Turkel:
That much is obviously true.

Till:
Why is it "obviously true" that the word archiereus was used in reference to Abiathar only to indicate that he was a "great priest or a renowned priest"?  Are we just supposed to take Turkel's word for this?

Oh, I forgot, I forgot!  We have Casey's word for it too.  But wait a minute.  Casey was the one who thought that the reference to Abiathar was just Jesus's way of telling the critics of his disciples that Abiathar was a "stickler for the law" and "a renowned priest whose name invokes the honoring of the law," but Turkel's appropriation of this "explanation" of the problem was conspicuously lacking in any kind of textual evidence to support this claim.  What did he say later about "Till-spins"?

I challenged Turkel to cite just one example of any kind of priestly decision that Abiathar had ever made that would justify the claim that he was a "stickler for the law" and "a  renowned priest whose name invokes the honoring of the law."

Did everyone notice that Turkel's reply, which I am now answering, didn't even attempt to give this information?  The reason it didn't, of course, is that there is nothing--absolutely nothing--in the Old Testament to justify Casey's claim that Abiathar was held in such high esteem.  We can just write this off as a "Casey-spin."

Turkel:
Abiathar served David for the entirety of his reign of 40 years and had the privilege, along with Zadok, of carrying the Ark of the Covenant, the most sacred Jewish religious object.

Till:
In my first reply to Turkel, I showed that the probable reason why David selected Abiathar to join his group was a feeling of guilt that David had over the massacre of Ahimelech and the other priests at Nob, which David correctly believed had been caused by the aid that Ahimelech had given him.

1 Samuel 22:20  But one of the sons of Ahimelech son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David.
21  Abiathar told David that Saul had killed the priests of Yahweh.
22  David said to Abiathar, "I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. I am responsible for the lives of all your father's house.
23  Stay with me, and do not be afraid; for the one who seeks my life seeks your life; you will be safe with me."

Abiathar's association with David began, then, because of David's feeling of responsibility for the massacre of Abiathar's family and not because of any special priestly talents that Abiathar was known for.  I will defy Turkel again to produce a single Old Testament passage that tells of any special recognition that Abiathar had for being a "renowned priest whose name invoke[d] the honoring of the law." 

Will Turkel admit that this explanation of his was just... well, just a "Turkel-spin"?  Don't count on it. 

As for Turkel's claim that Abiathar and Zadok "carried the ark of the covenant," which was the most sacred of Jewish religious objects, he should read the text again.

2 Samuel 15:24  Zadok was there, too, and all the Levites who were with him were carrying the ark of the covenant of God. They set down the ark of God, and Abiathar offered sacrifices until all the people had finished leaving the city.
25  Then the king said to Zadok, "Take the ark of God back into the city. If I find favor in the Lord's eyes, he will bring me back and let me see it and his dwelling place again."

So the ark on this occasion was carried by Levites who were with Abiathar and Zadok.  Let's just suppose, however, that Abiathar and Zadok had personally carried the ark.  How would that prove Turkel's claim that Abiathar was a "stickler for the law" and a "renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law"?  I'll  show later that priests who accompanied the ark were sometimes moral reprobates. 

Turkel:
As a renowned priest,

Till:
That's right!  When you don't have proof just assume what you are claiming.  I will ask Turkel again to cite passages in the Old Testament that would justify his claim that Abiathar was "a stickler for the law" and "a renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law."

Turkel:
[As a renowned priest,] it is expected that in his days, the Law would be correctly observed [Casey, 151] and his name would invoke the honoring of the law.

Till:
So Casey said, but where is his textual evidence from the Old Testament to justify that claim?  I'm still waiting for it.

Turkel:
Jesus mentions Abiathar in order to say, in effect, "In the time of Abiathar, who as a renowned priest was a real stickler for the law, and in whose days we would expect the law to be followed, David and his friends were allowed to do this; yet you say now that we can't do something similar? Are you a better judge of the law than Abiathar and his contemporaries were?" Bringing Abiathar into the mix was actually a subtle slam against the Pharisees' authority.

Till:
Yes, we know that this is what Casey and Turkel claim, but where is their textual evidence that justifies the claim?  Let them cite just one example from the Old Testament of any legal pronouncement that Abiathar ever made that would justify the claim that he was a "stickler for the law" and a "renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law."

Just one, Turk.  Come on, let's see it.  Otherwise, we are just going to have to write this off as a "Turkel-spin" intended to make your case "sound worthwhile."

Turkel:
In response to this general explanation, Farrell Till fumes about "verbal gymnastics that biblicists will resort to in order to try to make the Bible not say what it clearly says,"

Till:
There was no "fuming" but rather a simple statement of fact based on decades of experience trying to reason with biblical inerrantists.  To find harmony in the Bible, they will resort to all kinds of speculative how-it-could-have-beens, and Turkel is showing that he is no different from the others. He too can tie himself into verbal knots trying to find a way to "explain" an obvious biblical discrepancy.  In this case, he has speculated that Jesus referred to Abiathar rather than Ahimelech, because Abiathar was a "stickler for the law" and a "renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law," but he did this without offering any kind of textual evidence to support the claim. When he was asked to produce textual evidence that Abiathar was held in such esteem, he couldn't do it.

If the truth were known, this is probably what happened.  Turkel himself really wasn't too familiar with what the Old Testament said about Abiathar, so when he saw Casey's explanation of the problem, he thought, "Hey, that sounds good; I think I will use it."  He made this mistake without bothering to check Casey's claim, and now that he has been called upon to produce the textual evidence, he can't do it.

He can, however, accuse me of "fuming" when no fuming occurred, as if he thinks his readers--and he is probably right--will think, "Well, all Till can do is fume, so Turkel must be right."

This is all part of the inerrantist game, folks.

Turkel:
but last I checked, Maurice Casey was no "biblicist."

Till:
Neither were a lot of other biblical commentators, but some who seemed very level-headed at times in recognizing textual problems in the Bible would still resort sometimes to speculative how-it-could-have-beens to try to explain discrepancies.  I think of Samuel Driver as an example.  He recognized many textual problems in the book of Daniel, but at times, he would try to explain discrepancies with how-it-could-have-been scenarios.  He did this in the matter of a chronological discrepancy in chapters 1 and 2, concerning incompatibility with Daniel's dream interpretation in the second year of Nebuchadnezzar's reign (2:1) with the decree in 1:5 that the young captives should be trained for three years before they were presented to the king. Rather than acknowledge that this was a textual inconsistency, Driver tried to find a way to show that it wasn‘t "necessarily" a problem.  His "solution" was just as speculative as some of the solutions to biblical discrepancies that we find in fundamentalist literature.  The fact, then, that a Bible commentator isn't a "biblicist" doesn't mean that he won't try to solve biblical discrepancies with highly speculative explanations.

Turkel:
Some translations read the preposition as meaning, "in the time of" or "in the days of" and Till accuses these of "glossing over" the inconsistency (while regarding those that translate the preposition as "when" as more honest -- a typical skeptical boo game from Till, who has no idea what the motives, credentials, and experience of any of the translators are, and has no proof as to dishonesty, or who if anyone is being dishonest, but uses this type of argumentation because it easily sways gullible skeptics who are sure there is a conspiracy already). Till, however, chooses to read the preposition (epi)as being able to mean "before or "to": "The statement could, in fact, be seen as a usage that conveyed both the sense of appearance before an authority figure and an appearance in a legal situation, because the high priest would have been someone familiar with the legalities of letting a nonpriest eat the showbread." But Till is floundering through Strong's without a license.

Till:
No, actually I was "floundering" through Arndt's and Gingrich's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and a copy of the Greek New Testament.  I don't use Strong's when I have better reference works available.

Turkel:
No commentary takes epi here to mean physical location.

Till:
Hmm, Turkel must be familiar with all commentaries; otherwise, he couldn't have made this statement. How could he possibly know that no commentary takes epi in Mark 2:26 to mean physical location?  Turkel fails to mention, however, that I quoted translations of the New Testament that did exactly what he claims that "no commentary" did.  I suppose I will have to quote these again, because Turkel didn't bother to reply to them.

Concord Literal New Testament: And He said to them, "Did you never read what David does, when he had need and hungers, he and those with him?  How he entered into the house of God under Abiathar the chief priest, and at the show bread, which is not allowed to be eaten except by the priests, and he gives also to those who are with him?"

Young's Literal Translation:  And he said to them, "Did ye never read what David did, when he had need and was hungry, he and those with him?  how he went into the house of God (at Abiathar the chief priest,) and the loaves of the presentation did eat, which it is not lawful to eat, except to the priests, and he gave also to those who were with him?"

Robert "Snip-and-Skip" Turkel also conveniently passed over the several passages I cited to show that epi was often used to indicate an appearance "before" a prominent person or to indicate an appearance "before" a legal situation.  I guess I will have to reinsert these so that Turkel can ignore them again. 

Matthew 10:17-18   Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; and you will be dragged before [epi] governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles.

Matthew 28:14  "If this report gets to [epi] the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble."

Mark 13:9   "You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before [epi] governors and kings as witnesses to them."

Acts 23:30  "When I was informed that there would be a plot against the man [the apostle Paul], I sent him to you at once, ordering his accusers also to state before [epi] you what they have against him."

Acts 24:20-21   Or let these men here tell what crime they had found when I [Paul] stood before [epi] the council....

Acts 25:10  Paul answered: "I am now standing before [epi] Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried."

Acts 25:26   But I have nothing definite to write to our sovereign about him [Paul]. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before [epi] you, King Agrippa, so that, after we have examined him, I may have something to write....

1 Corinthians 6:1  When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before  [epi]  the unrighteous, instead of taking it before [epi]  the saints?

1 Corinthians 6:5-6  Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another, but a believer goes to court against a believer--and before [epi] unbelievers at that? 

2 Corinthians 7:14  For if I have been somewhat boastful about you to him, I was not disgraced; but just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting to [epi] Titus has proved true as well.

1 Timothy 6:13  In the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before  [epi] Pontius Pilate made the good confession....

In a debate, either party has the right to ask his opponent to respond to arguments or rebuttals that have been evaded.  Turkel has not responded to my argument, based on the examples quoted above, that the word epi conveyed the sense of "before" or "in the presence of," so I am formally requesting that he reply to these examples.  If he fails to do so, I will assume that he cannot reply to them.

Turkel:
The Translator's Handbook to Mark's Gospel (Brill, 1961) indicates that epi with the genitive makes this a "time" delineation [100].

Till:
It can convey this but doesn't necessarily have to.  Arndt & Gingrich said that epi could be used with the genitive, dative, or accusative and "with the genitive" conveyed "place," "on, upon, answering the question  ‘where?'" They cited several examples (Matt. 6:10; Mark 6:47; Matt. 24:30; Mark 14:51; etc.), none of which conveyed the sense of "time."

The second definition given by Arndt & Gingrich stated that epi could mean "in the time of" in the sense of "under=during the rule or administration of."  They again cited several examples, most of which are not at all helpful to Turkel's position. 

Luke 4:27  There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of [epi] the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.

The story of the curing of Naaman's leprosy is recorded in 2 Kings 5, and Elisha was the prophet to whom Naaman went and through whom the alleged cure was effected.  Obviously, then, Jesus didn't intend to say that Naaman was cured of leprosy only at sometime during Elisha's life span, perhaps when he was a child or a young man who had not yet been chosen to succeed Elijah, but rather meant to say that the curing of Naaman happened during the active prophetic ministry of the prophet Elisha.   By the way, epi was used with the genitive form of Elisha's name [Elissiou] in this passage.

Acts 11:27  At that time prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch.
28  One of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that there would be a severe famine over all the world; and this took place during the reign [epi] of Claudius.

Famine did occur in various parts of the empire during the reign of Claudius, not at some time when Claudius was alive, before he had become emperor, but during the actual time of his reign.  In this verse, epi was also used with the genitive form of Claudius's name [Klaudiou]. 

Luke 3:1  In the fifteenth year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias ruler of Abilene,
2  during [epi] the high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John son of Zechariah in the wilderness.

Biblical inerrantists love to cite this passage as an example of the remarkable accuracy of Luke's historical records.  Some New Testament records indicate that Annas was high priest before and after the trial of Jesus (Acts 4:6), but others indicate that Caiphas was the high priest at this time (John 18:12-13).  By claiming this as an inconsistency, some skeptics have unwittingly given biblicists reason to scoff at skeptical criticism of the Bible, because the solution to the problem is found in the fact that, depending on perspective, both Annas and Caiphas were high priest at the same time.  Annas was installed as high priest in AD 6 but deposed in AD 15 by Gratus, the procurator of Judea.  Caiphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was then appointed high priest.   Jews probably considered Annas their official high priest, which would explain why the officers of the Jews took Jesus to Annas first after he was arrested and then to Caiphas (John 18:12-13, 24), but Judea was under Roman authority at this time, so Caiphas was the high priest as far as the Romans were concerned.

Aware of this, informed biblicists will point to Luke 3:1-2 as an example of the accuracy of details in Luke's historical narratives.  He knew that both Annas and Caiphas were high priest at the same time.  Luke's statement quoted above, however, does serious damage to Turkel's claim that epi simply meant "in the time of" and could refer to any time in the life of the person that epi referred to, because Luke said that the word of God came to John [the Baptist] during [epi] the highpriesthood of Annas and Caiphas.  In other words, as Arndt & Gingrich pointed out, the word epi used in this way meant under in the sense of "during the administration of."  Hence, the word of God came to John the Baptist during the administration of Annas and Caiphas or when Annas and Caiphas both served as high priest.  Obviously, it wasn't the intention of Luke to say that the word of God came to John at some time during the lifetimes of Annas and Caiphas but rather at a particular time in their lives, i. e., when they were serving as high priest.

Ironically enough, the third example that Arndt & Gingrich gave in this section of their definition of epi was none other than Mark 2:26.

Mark 2:25  And he said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food?
26  He entered the house of God, when [epi] 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."

By citing Mark 2:26 as an example of usage in this section of their lexicon, Arndt & Gingrinch were saying that the statement attributed to Jesus was conveying that David entered the house of God under the administration of Abiathar the high priest.

Turkel seems to think that if he cites what Casey said or what Brill said, that should settle the matter in his favor, but if I cite authorities like Arndt & Gingrich, who say the opposite, do we have a stalemate or what?  Furthermore, if I quote commentaries who frankly admit that the statement attributed to Jesus was an error, will this settle the dispute in my favor?  I ask these questions simply to point out that Turkel's habit of saying, "Casey said," or "Brill said," or "Demar thinks," doesn't prove anything.  I wish he would spend half as much time trying to defend the claims of his "scholars" by explicating their claims as he spends just quoting them.

Turkel:
And what about our return that Abiathar was cited as an example of someone who would be a stickler, in whose days the law would be expected to be followed? Till complains that I quote no textual evidence for this,

Till:
Well, is it not true that Turkel cited not one scrap of textual evidence to support his claim that Abiathar was recognized as a "stickler for the law" and a "renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law"?  If I have misrepresented him, all he has to do is quote the evidence that he cited to support these claims.

Turkel:
and replies that "Ahimelech was depicted much more favorably in this respect than was his son Abiathar." How?  By noting that Abiathar used an "ephod" to forsee [sic] the future.

Till:
Here is another of Turkel's gross distortions.  I did indeed say that Ahimelech was depicted much more favorably than Abiathar, but I quoted textual evidence to show that Ahimelech was an honorable man. Turkel made only a fleeting comment (below) about  the scriptures I quoted to establish the integrity of Ahimelech and chose to put all of his eggs into one basket to try to discredit my evidence that Abiathar wasn't presented in any especially favorable light in the Old Testament. Whenever Turkel resorts to this kind of distortion, I'm just going to reinsert what he passed over without comment. Afterwards, I'll address his attempt to make Abiathar into a "renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law," but first here is what I said  in my initial reply about Ahimelech's  integrity.

In all of the references to Abiathar, there is nothing--absolutely nothing--to justify Turkel's claim that Abiathar was known as a "stickler for the law."  To the contrary, his life ended in disgrace, and his father Ahimelech was the one who was depicted as a priest with high integrity.  When Doeg the Edomite, who had seen Ahimelech give bread  and Goliath's sword to David, reported the incident, Saul summoned  Ahimelech and the priests of Nob before him.

1 Samuel 22:11  The king sent for the priest Ahimelech son of Ahitub and for all his father's house, the priests who were at Nob; and all of them came to the king.
12  Saul said, "Listen now, son of Ahitub." He answered, "Here I am, my lord."
13  Saul said to him, "Why have you conspired against me, you and the son of Jesse, by giving him bread and a sword, and by inquiring of God for him, so that he has risen against me, to lie in wait, as he is doing today?"
14  Then Ahimelech answered the king, "Who among all your servants is so faithful as David? He is the king's son-in-law, and is quick to do your bidding, and is honored in your house.
15  Is today the first time that I have inquired of God for him? By no means! Do not let the king impute anything to his servant or to any member of my father's house; for your servant has known nothing of all this, much or little."
16  The king said, "You shall surely die, Ahimelech, you and all your father's house."
17  The king said to the guard who stood around him, "Turn and kill the priests of Yahweh, because their hand also is with David; they knew that he fled, and did not disclose it to me." But the servants of the king would not raise their hand to attack the priests of Yahweh.
18  Then the king said to Doeg, "You, Doeg, turn and attack the priests." Doeg the Edomite turned and attacked the priests; on that day he killed eighty-five who wore the linen ephod.
19  Nob, the city of the priests, he put to the sword; men and women, children and infants, oxen, donkeys, and sheep, he put to the sword.
20  But one of the sons of Ahimelech son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David.

The verses emphasized in bold print don't prove anything about  Ahimelech's view of the law of Moses, but they do show that he was a person of high integrity, who was willing to reprimand a king who he thought was wrong.  That is more than was ever said about Abiathar, who aligned himself with David in order to save his life and then later proved himself to be an opportunist, who with Joab, David's leading general, plotted against Yahweh's choice of a successor to David as David lay dying (1 Kings 1:7).     Abiathar died in banishment, whereas his father Ahimelech died for principles he believed in. 

Turkel:
This, Till tells us with a sniffle, was "divination" comparable to tarot cards and palm readings.

Till:
I sniffled when I said this?  I must have missed the sniffle, so maybe Turkel would care to quote it.  Anyway, I have to wonder if it is even necessary to quote or make reference to this.  Is it not merely pompous strutting, as though Turkel has already refuted my argument, thereby manipulatively attempting to preempt the argument as though victory has already been won?

Those who have followed how many times Turkel cut and pasted such drivel as this into our land-promise debate will immediately see my point.

Turkel:
Oh? Only by the Farrell Spin. The inquiry using the ephod (whatever it was, and however it worked) was to Yahweh, and inquiring of Yahweh was not forbidden by the law, no matter what spin Till puts on the matter.

Till:
 I suspect that this would have been done much in the same way that king Mesha of the Moabites inquired of Chemosh, wouldn't it?  So what do we conclude here?  Was it divination if some non-Hebraic king "inquired" of his god but not divination if a Hebrew king so inquired of his god?

The practice of divination was widespread in the ancient Near East, but it was condemned in the Old Testament (Lev. 19:26; Deut. 18:9-14), but the restriction on this was like a lot of other restrictions.  They were often ignored.  Sacrifices, for example, were to be offered only in the place where Yahweh had put his name (Deut. 12:5ff), which, of course, was first the tabernacle altar and then later the temple altar, but the Old Testament abounds with examples of sacrifices that were offered to Yahweh in various places without apparently incurring the wrath of Yahweh.  I guess it all depended on who was doing what.

At any rate, my comment was intended to focus attention on the silliness of many of the biblical texts that inerrantists like Turkel will claim were inerrant.  He thinks that a man who carried an "ephod" around with him to "inquire" of Yahweh was an example of a "renowned priest" who was "a stickler for the law."  As readers reflect on this, they should keep in mind that Turkel is the one who believes in the inerrancy of a book filled with stories of talking animals and "inquiring" of gods.  I take pride in having a bit more common sense than that.

Turkel:
By saying, there is nothing in the OT to suggest that Abiathar was especially a stickler for the law.

Till:
Well, there isn't, is there?  If there is why doesn't Turkel just quote it?  Doesn't everyone know that he would like nothing better than to embarrass me by, in this case, producing a text that would verify his [Casey's] claim that Abiathar was "a stickler for the law" and "a renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law"?

He is in a spot.  He can't produce any such evidence, so he has to resort to the quibbling we see immediately below.

Turkel:
There did not have to be; it is implicit in the context. As noted, Abiathar was one of two (other than Zadok) to carry the Ark of the Covenant under David, and he did so for 40 years.

Till:
As noted previously, on the occasion that Turkel is referring to, the ark was actually carried by Levites who accompanied Abiathar and Zadok (2 Sam. 15:24).  Let's suppose, however, that Abiathar had actually carried the ark.  How would that prove that he was renowned as a priest whose name invoked honoring the law?  Eli's sons, Hopni and Phinehas, were presented in 1 Samuel 2:12-17 as corrupt priests who used the priesthood for their personal gain, yet when the ark of the covenant was taken into battle against the Philistines, "Hopni and Phinehas were there with the ark of God" (1 Sam. 4:4), so the fact that priests may have accompanied the ark of the covenant did not say anything at all about the personal character of the priests.  The corruption of Hopni and Phinehas was so notorious that Yahweh cursed the house of their father Eli and declared that he would "cut off the arm" of the house of Eli's father so that "there would not be an old man in [Eli's] house" (1 Sam. 2:31).  As a sign, Yahweh declared that Hopni and Phinehas would both die in one day (v:34), which, as the story was told, was fulfilled in a battle when the Philistines captured the ark of the covenant (1 Sam. 4:11). This tale of Hopni and Phinehas shows that the Bible attached no claim of special righteousness or esteem to  priests who were entrusted with the ark of the covenant.  Readers should keep this story in mind, because I will soon tie it in with Solomon's banishment of Abiathar, whose life ended in disgrace.

So is Abiathar's association with the Ark of the covenant Turkel's best example of something that is "implicit in the context" to show that Abiathar was held in high priestly esteem?  It seems that just about anything is "implicit in the context" if Turkel needs it to find consistency in the Bible text.  He made a statement about the reputation of Abiathar as a "stickler for the law" and a "renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law," and now he is desperately searching for some way to get out of the predicament he has gotten himself into.

Turkel:
Till would certainly not dispute that for whatever flaws he had, David was regarded as Israel's greatest king.

Till:
Well, yes, I would dispute that, and I have the "inspired, inerrant word of God" on my side.

2 Kings 23:24  Moreover Josiah put away the mediums, wizards, teraphim, idols, and all the abominations that were seen in the land of Judah and in Jerusalem, so that he established the words of the law that were written in the book that the priest Hilkiah had found in the house of Yahweh.
25  Before him there was no king like him, who turned to Yahweh with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses; nor did any like him arise after him.

Josiah reigned after David, but the time of his reign doesn't really matter.  If there had been no king before him or after him who turned to Yahweh with all his heart, with all his soul, and with all his might, according to all the law of Moses, then Josiah had to have outranked David for greatness.

That would be "implicit in the context," wouldn't it?

Furthermore, David was forbidden by Yahweh to build the temple, because "[he] had shed much blood on the earth in [Yahweh's] sight" (1 Chron. 22:8).  Solomon was chosen instead to build the temple.  Solomon's kingdom and wealth were described with a splendor that dwarfed David's, and Solomon was said to be the wisest man who had ever lived and would ever live (1 Kings 3:12).  Is there anything "implicit in the context" of all this?

Ah, the problems that one encounters when he sets out to establish consistency in the biblical text!

Turkel:
One may as well say that any man who served under George Washington in a high position for the duration of his Presidency was not thereby implicitly someone who did his job very well.

Till:
Hmm, Turkel obviously has an idealistic view of George Washington.  Does he think that political rewards and cronyism just didn't exist in those days?

Turkel:
One can only counter that by showing examples of malfeasance, and Till's "ephod charge" is all he can come up with,

Till:
Well, not really, has Turkel forgotten that I pointed out that Abiathar opposed Yahweh's choice of Solomon to succeed David on the throne?  Turkel tries to wiggle around this below, so I'll save further comment until then.  The major problem with Turkel's claim that Abiathar had been known as a "stickler for the law" and a "renown priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law" is not that the Old Testament says much about "malfeasance" on Abiathar's part but the embarrassing reality that the old Testament doesn't say anything at all about special priestly qualifications of Abiathar.

Has Turkel ever heard of the logical adage that says he who asserts must prove?  Turkel has made an assertion about the priestly character of Abiathar, so he has an obligation to prove that assertion.

Turkel:
plus this:

By noting one place where Ahimelech did something with integrity (which Farrell admits does not show him to be a stickler for the law).

Till:
It did, however, show that Ahimelech was a man of integrity, and that is more than Turkel can find in any text about Abiathar, who showed indications of being an opportunist.  He fled to David after the massacre at Nob in order to find safety.  He apparently misjudged and supported Solomon's half-brother Adonijah in the power struggle for the throne while David was lying on his deathbed.

Turkel [summarizing Till]:
Ahimelech, it is said, "was a person of high integrity, who was willing to reprimand a king who he thought was wrong" (though the context is that of responding to an accusation by Saul against him, to which we would expect such a response!)

Till:
We would expect such a response to an angry accusation from an absolute monarch?  Surely, Turkel is kidding.  An unprincipled person would certainly not have spoken so bluntly to a king who held the power of life and death in his hands.  A person without principles would have tried a diplomatic route.  One just doesn't speak to an angry king as bluntly as Ahimelech did.  It would have taken moral courage to do that.

Is anyone else noticing that Turkel has no difficulty at all finding "implicit in the context" whatever he needs to make Abiathar into a "renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law," but when a text is rather explicit in saying something that is damaging to Turkel's position, he can find all kinds of excuses to explain it away.

Such is the tactic of the biblical inerrantist.

Turkel [summarizing Till]:
while Ab "aligned himself with David in order to save his life and then later proved himself to be an opportunist, who with Joab, David's leading general, plotted against Yahweh's choice of a successor to David as David lay dying (1 Kings 1:7)" and was banished by Solomon. Excuse me? Nothing in 1 Kings says that Ab took his side because he was an opportunist. Nothing at all is said about his motives, or how he came to choose Adonijah over Solomon;

Till:
The text claims that (1) Adonijah gathered a group of chariots and horsemen around him with 50 men to run before him; (2) his father David had not displeased him at any time by asking why he was doing this; (3) he was a handsome man and the son of David who had been born after Absalom, whose death had caused David so much grief; (4) he "conferred with Joab the son of Zeruiah and with Abiathar the priest"; and (5) Joab and Abiathar supported Adonijah (1 Kings 1:5-7).  Does Turkel think that this conference that Adonijah had with Abiathar and David's leading general was just a friendly chat that didn't involve any political angles at all?  Adonijah's political maneuvering included celebrations with all of his brothers except Solomon and ceremonial sacrifices of oxen and sheep "in abundance," and his apparent consolidation of power had even reached a point where Nathan the prophet and Bathsheba both spoke in terms of Adonijah's "reigning" (vs:11, 18).  As the story was told, all signs were indicating that Adonijah would win the throne.

Turkel didn't have any trouble finding something "implicit in the context" to make Abiathar into "a renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law," so he should find at least a little bit "implicit in the context" of 1 Kings 1 to imply that Abiathar engaged in political wheeling and dealing that at the time made him think that he was consolidating his own position with the next king.

Of course, one can't help wondering why Abiathar didn't just whip out his ephod and "inquire of Yahweh" to learn what course of action he should take during the power struggle.  As it was, he apparently made no inquiry, and so he cast his lot with the loser against Yahweh's choice to succeed David.

Is Turkel still not convinced?  Maybe then he will want to consider a brief statement that was made after Solomon had called Abiathar before him and ordered his banishment for having sided with Adonijah.  After Solomon's sentence was pronounced on Abiathar, the writer said, "So Solomon banished Abiathar from being priest to Yahweh, thus fulfilling the word of Yahweh that he had spoken concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh" (1 Kings 2:27). So Abiathar died in disgrace, stripped of his priesthood, a turn in his life that was claimed as a prophetic fulfillment that had been pronounced on the house of Eli because of the priestly corruption of Hopni and Phinehas (referred to above).

Some "renowned priest" Abiathar was!

Turkel:
this is Till applying spin to make his case sound worthwhile.

Till:
Till is applying spin to make his case sound worthwhile?  That's downright funny coming from someone who, without any textual evidence at all, put this spin on Jesus's reference to Abiathar as the high priest at the time of the incident at Nob.

"In the time of Abiathar, who was a real stickler for the law, and we would expect the law to be followed, David and his friends were allowed to do this; yet you say now that we can't do something similar? Are you a better judge of the law than Abiathar was?"

Yes, that is exactly what Turkel said that Jesus meant, and if ever there was a "spin" intended to make a case "worthwhile," this is it.  And Turkel has the gall to accuse me of putting "spins" on the texts that I quote to support my case!  I at least explicate the texts I quote in order to show why they should be seen as support for my position.  Turkel, on the other hand, just asserts that the texts he refers to mean whatever he claims they mean.

When Turkel says, "(T)his is Till applying spin to make his case sound worthwhile," what has he refuted?  Anyone could make this assertion about any textual explication no matter how sound it is, so I leave it to the judgment of readers to determine if I have supported my case by textual explications.  I also leave it to the judgment of readers to decide if Turkel has yet refuted anything pertaining to my position in this matter.

Turkel:
Nor can it be shown except by Till-spin that Ab originally aligned himself with David purely to save his own life;

Till:
Well, the easiest way to respond to this is to quote what the biblical text says.  The quotation begins with a description of the extent of Saul's massacre of the priests at Nob.

1 Samuel 22:18  Then the king said to Doeg, "You, Doeg, turn and attack the priests." Doeg the Edomite turned and attacked the priests; on that day he killed eighty-five who wore the linen ephod.
19  Nob, the city of the priests, he put to the sword; men and women, children and infants, oxen, donkeys, and sheep, he put to the sword.
20  But one of the sons of Ahimelech son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David.
21  Abiathar told David that Saul had killed the priests of the LORD.
22  David said to Abiathar, "I knew on that day, when Doeg the Edomite was there, that he would surely tell Saul. I am responsible for the lives of all your father's house.
23  Stay with me, and do not be afraid; for the one who seeks my life seeks your life; you will be safe with me."

Why did Abiathar flee after David, who had gone into Philistine territory?  Why didn't he just flee elsewhere?  David said, "You will be safe with me."  Does Turkel think that Abiathar wasn't aware of this?  Didn't Turkel say something about Abiathar's reputation as a "renown priest" being "implicit in the context," which was a context that said nothing at all about Abiathar's fame or reputation?  He can see implied that which he wants to see, but if they are damaging to his position, he has problems seeing implications that are almost stated outright.

Where else except by "Turkel-spin" did Turkel get the idea that Jesus intentionally referred to Abiathar rather than Ahimelech because he wanted the accusers of his disciples to understand that the incident at Nob had happened at the time when Abiathar, "a stickler for the law" and "a renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law" was living?

This guy has the gall to accuse me of putting special "spins" on passages just to make my case sound "worthwhile"?  Yes, coming from him, that accusation is downright funny.

Turkel:
 nothing is said about his motives there, either.

Till:
What was said in Mark 2:25-26 about the "motives" that Jesus had in referring to Abiathar as the high priest rather than Ahimelech?  Absolutely nothing was said about it, but Turkel had no problem manufacturing a motive for Jesus.  On the other hand, I have shown that (1) Abiathar escaped the massacre at Nob and fled to David, (2) Abiathar was told that he would be safe with David, and (3) at the end of David's life, Abiathar sided with Solomon's opponent in the power struggle for the throne against the person whom Yahweh had chosen to succeed David.  My analysis of 1 Kings 1:5ff  (above) gave some very "implicit" reasons to conclude that Abiathar took part in political maneuvering to put himself on the side that he thought would win the struggle.

I submit to readers that the implications here are far more obvious than Turkel's crass assumption that Jesus referred to Abiathar rather than Ahimelech in order to impress on the accusers of his disciples that the incident at Nob had happened "in the time" of a "renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law."

This guy has the gall to accuse me of putting special "spins" on biblical texts!

Turkel:
Till, he speaks snidely of "how it could have been" scenarios, seems to feel free to posit "how it looks to me" scenarios whenever it suits his purposes!

Till:
I trust the audience to see that I support my conclusions with textual analyses that show at least strong implications of what I conclude.  Turkel, on the other hand, just asserts without even trying to support his assertions.  When, for example, has he tried to support his assertion that Jesus intentionally referred to Abiathar rather than Ahimelech because Abiathar had lived at the same time as Ahimelech and had had the reputation of being a "stickler for the law" and "a renowned priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law"?

When?

Now that he is giving his readers links that let them see what his opponents say in their articles, Turkel is having to spend a lot of time that accomplishes nothing but to let his contributors see that he is just another biblical inerrantist, who like all of the others can explain biblical discrepancies only by positing unlikely scenarios.  This always puts the inerrantist at a disadvantage, because he must go from one unlikely scenario to the other in order to sustain his position that the Bible is inerrant.  When he posits a "possible scenario" to explain discrepancy A, he must then go on to discrepancy B, repeat the process, and then go to C... D... E.... F, etc.  Eventually, he runs the risk of causing his readers to wonder if all of the fanciful, speculative, how-it-could-have-been scenarios can be true.  If even one of them isn't, then the inerrantist has failed to make his case that the Bible is inerrant.

As Turkel now goes about his goal of proving the Bible to be inerrant, we see that, like the Big Bad Wolf in the nursery rhyme, he huffs and puffs a lot, but so far, we have seen him blow no houses down.  That must make those who have pledged $70 to $80 per year so that Turkel can become a full-time "apologist" wonder if they are getting their money's worth.  Go to Part Two.