Turkel:
To this [Abiathar served David for 40 years] it is said:

Till [quoted in part by 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.

Turkel:
Wha ha! Let's reply with the same mantra Till uses: "What? He can read David's mind?" "It doesn't say in the text that David felt guilty!" Now I'm sure Till will want to turn the table here and say, "Yeah, well, it's a reasonable supposition, isn't it?" Nope! It isn't.

Till:
I'll begin my reply to this by quoting the full context of my statement, which Turkel snipped down to the one partial sentence above.

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."

Notice that I obviously used the expressions "feeling of guilt" and "feeling of responsibility" interchangeably.  Hence, when I said that David had a "feeling of guilt" over the massacre of Abiathar's family and when I said that David had a "feeling of responsibility" for the massacre, I meant the same thing.  That David felt responsible for the massacre is obvious from the statement that I emphasized in bold print in verse 22 above, so I'll let Turkel argue with his inspired, inerrant word of God. 

Can readers imagine how Turkel would be accusing me of Church-of-Christism if I should resort to flagrant quibbling like this?

Turkel:
This is where Till makes his humungous sociological blunder. Till fans are advised that what follows is the sort of thing that would go in your "baffling with BS file" as something you have no answer for, can't understand, and think I am making up.  Ready?

News flash: There is no way David took on Abby out of guilt, because guilt is a modern invention. Now while you skeptics out there are trying to wipe the baccy off your juice harp, here's a little blurb from Malina and Rohrbaugh's Social Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels. Speaking on forgiveness in the NT, they say: "Since the introspective, guilt-oriented outlook of industrialized societies did not exist [in NT times], it is unlikely that forgiveness meant psychological healing. Instead, forgiveness by God meant being divinely restored to one's position and therefore freed from fear of loss at the hands of God." [63]

Till:
Oh, my God, did Malina and Rohrbaugh say this?  Then it must be right.

Did anyone else besides me notice that Malina and Rohrbaugh offered no kind of argumentation at all to support their claim--at least not in the part Turkel quoted--so it is nothing but a bald assertion.  This is Turkel's stock in trade.  He thinks that if he quotes a book that agrees with his position, then he has made his case.  I hate to puncture his balloon, but I guess I will have to.

I can't imagine that Turkel would be dumb enough to argue that human nature in biblical times was so radically different from ours that people didn't experience feelings of guilt, remorse, sorrow, etc. for their actions, and I have to wonder why this guy doesn't take the time to check claims that he finds in books before he cuts and pastes them into his "apologetic materials."  The kind of impetuosity that causes him to leap before he looks is responsible for the predicament he is now in.  He read Casey's "explanation" of the Abiathar problem and recycled it without first checking to see if it could withstand scrutiny.

I'll first take Malina's and Rohrbaugh's claim that forgiveness in biblical times didn‘t mean "psychological healing."  Maybe they will want to argue with the prophet Isaiah.

Isaiah 6:9  And he said, "Go and say to this people: ‘Keep listening, but do not comprehend; keep looking, but do not understand.'
10  Make the mind of this people dull, and stop their ears, and shut their eyes, so that they may not look with their eyes, and listen with their ears, and comprehend with their minds, and turn and be healed."

Maybe they will want to argue with Jesus too, because he quoted this scripture and applied it to the people of his generation (John 12:40).

They may want to argue with the apostle Paul, because he quoted it too.

Acts 28:25  They disagreed among themselves and began to leave after Paul had made this final statement: "The Holy Spirit spoke the truth to your forefathers when he said through Isaiah the prophet:
26  "‘Go to this people and say, "You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving."
27  For this people's heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.'
28  "Therefore I want you to know that God's salvation has been sent to the Gentiles, and they will listen!"

The application of this scripture in all three places was obviously not in reference to physical healing, and Paul's statement in the final verse quoted above shows that.  He was talking about the spiritual healing that comes from "God's salvation."

By the way, I emphasized a statement in bold print in verse 25 especially for Turkel's benefit in order to make a point that I said earlier that I would return to.  Paul claimed that the statement quoted these three times was actually spoken by the Holy Spirit through Isaiah, so Turkel can spare us any more imaginary Till/McKinsey or Hyper/Turkel dialogues about my Church-of-Christ mentality.  The Bible clearly teaches that biblical prophets and writers were guided by the Holy Spirit as they spoke and wrote, so according to the doctrine of divine inspiration, if a mistake of "overliteral" interpretation was made in Mark 2:26, it wasn't Mark who made the mistake but the Holy Spirit. 

Is Turkel still not convinced?  Well, let's look at just one more example.

Hebrews 3:7  Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says, "Today, if you hear his voice,
8  do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, as on the day of testing in the wilderness,
9  where your ancestors put me to the test, though they had seen my works
10  for forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, and I said, ‘They always go astray in their hearts, and they have not known my ways.'
11  As in my anger I swore, 'They will not enter my rest.'"

The writer of Hebrews was quoting Psalm 95:7ff in this verse, and he said that the Holy Spirit had said this. 

Now let's return to the claim that "psychological healing" was unknown in biblical times.

Jeremiah 15:17  I did not sit in the company of merrymakers, nor did I rejoice; under the weight of your hand I sat alone, for you had filled me with indignation.
18  Why is my pain unceasing, my wound incurable, refusing to be healed? Truly, you are to me like a deceitful brook, like waters that fail.

This was obviously a reference to psychological pain, so the statement that it refused to be healed was an acknowledgement that such pain could be healed.

Isaiah 53:4  Surely he took up our infirmities and carried our sorrows, yet we considered him stricken by God, smitten by him, and afflicted.
5  But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed.

Surely, Turkel won't deny that this referred to a spiritual healing.  After all, the verses that followed these were quoted in Acts 8:32-33 and erroneously applied to Jesus, and 1 Peter 2:24-25 applied the very verses quoted above to Jesus.

What about guilt?  How can Turkel read passages like Psalm 51 and think that people of that time experienced no feelings of guilt?

Psalm 51:1  Have mercy on me, O God, according to your steadfast love; according to your abundant mercy blot out my transgressions.
2  Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin.
3  For I know my transgressions, and my sin is ever before me.
4  Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done what is evil in your sight, so that you are justified in your sentence and blameless when you pass judgment.
5  Indeed, I was born guilty, a sinner when my mother conceived me.

I suppose Turkel would say that even the prodigal son experienced no remorse or guilt over his conduct, but there are far too many biblical passages that express grief, sorrow, remorse, and, yes, guilt over "sins" to waste more time addressing a point that is really irrelevant to the issue.  If Turkel could prove beyond all doubt that feelings of guilt just didn't exist at all in biblical times, how would that prove that Abiathar was a "renowned priest" whose name "invoke[d] honoring the law"? 

I'll say again that Turkel could settle this matter very easily by just quoting Old Testament scriptures that depicted Abiathar as a "stickler for the law," so why doesn't he quote them?

Turkel:
Of course we don't think it was any different in OT times, either, and you can try to say that it is, but we say it wasn't. Dave didn't ask Abby along out of guilt; he asked him along because it was the right thing to do, and the right thing to restore to him a position of the sort held by his father, and give him the safety his father had not had.

Till:
When Turkel presents any real evidence to support Malina's and Rohrbaugh's claim that feelings of guilt just didn't exist in biblical times, I'll be glad to present more scriptures that show the contrary.  Another one just popped into my mind.

Acts 2:37  Now when they heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and to the other apostles, "Brothers, what should we do?"

What these people had heard was a sermon by the apostle Peter in which he had said that the same Jesus they had crucified was Lord and Christ.  When they heard this, they were "cut to their hearts" and asked Peter and the other apostles what they should do, but they didn't have any feelings of guilt.  Just ask Turkel.  He'll tell you they didn't.

I just thought of another sermon that Peter preached shortly after Pentecost.

Acts 3:18  In this way God fulfilled what he had foretold through all the prophets, that his Messiah would suffer.
19  Repent therefore, and turn to God so that your sins may be wiped out,
20  so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord....

Of course, these "times of refreshing" that would come from the presence of the Lord after these people had repented and turned to God would not have involved any feelings of "psychological healing."  Just ask Turkel.  He'll tell you.

There is more, much more, so I will leave it to Turkel to decide if he wants to pursue this ridiculous assertion any further.

Turkel:
Guilt? Pah humbug. That's Till anachronizing again. And that he does so tells us how much any of his other "hichb" scenarios might be worth.

Till:
I've replied to this above.  When Turkel presents textual evidence to support this ridiculous claim, I'll be glad to reply to it further.  Otherwise, there is no need to waste more time on a bald, unsupported assertion intended to draw attention from the two major concerns in this debate: (1) What did epi mean?  (2)  Did Jesus purposefully refer to Abiathar instead of Ahimelech in order to invoke the name of a "renowned" priest who was a "stickler for the law" and famous for "honoring the law"?

Turkel:
Till might fume back that it does not matter if Dave felt guilty or was just righting a perceived wrong guilt-free. That's fine -- but we never argued that Dave made the initial selection because of Abby's good rep in the first place.  That rep came out of 40 years of faithful service,

Till:
Well, Turkel just shot himself in the foot.  He argued that Jesus intentionally referred to Abiathar rather than Ahimelech because Abiathar was "a renowned priest" whose name would have "invoke[d] honoring the law" to the critics of Jesus's disciples, but if Abiathar's reputation for being a "stickler for the law" didn't exist at the time of the incident at Nob but developed during 40 years of "faithful service" that began after the incident at Nob, how would invoking Abiathar's name instead of Ahimelech's have proven anything about the rightness of David's action of eating the showbread?  It's time to look at Turkel's, er, Casey's claim again.

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.

That was their claim, but so far we haven't seen any supporting textual evidence, not even as much as a single Old Testament passage that says anything about any priestly decisions that Abiathar made that indicate he was a "stickler for the law."  I'll give Turkel another chance to save face.  He can cut and paste the supporting textual evidence after his ID marker below.

Turkel:

 

Turkel:
and while any man who held a job 40 years today would 99% of the time be regarded as someone who did a danged good job (Till worked 30+ years at one place, did he not? Did he manage that with lousy performance reviews?),  Till says no, can't be, we need something more specific than that,

Till:
Surely Turkel isn't going to argue that length of service on a job is a guarantee of outstanding performance.  Length of service can often result in long-timers resting on their laurels, and I can personally think of such examples where I worked.  The fact that Turkel has to resort to this kind of quibbling is a clear indication that he has no real evidence to offer.  If he did, he would just quote the relevant Old Testament passages that support Casey's claim that Abiathar had a reputation for being a stickler for the law.  The fact that we have seen no such quotations is clear proof that Turkel is cornered and is trying to get out with at least some of his face still intact.

Turkel:
and then burps:

Till [quoted by Turkel]:
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.

Turkel:
Till quotes 2 Sam. 15:24-25,

Till:
Turkel obviously didn't want readers to be reminded of what 2 Samuel 15:24-25 said, and so he snipped it.  Here it is.

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 this text says that the Levites who were with Zadok were carrying the ark of the covenant.

Turkel:
but whoops, that's not far enough:

2 Samuel 15:29 Zadok therefore and Abiathar carried the ark of God again to Jerusalem: and they tarried there.

"Not specific enough!" Till may fume. "Maybe it means he was supervisor over people who carried it!"

Till:
By golly, I think that, shazam, Turkel has received a revelation. 

1 Kings 6:2  The temple that King Solomon built for Yahweh was sixty cubits long, twenty wide and thirty high.

I guess Turkel thinks that Solomon laid every stone that went into building the temple.  I guess he also thinks that Moses personally did every single act attributed to him in the following passage.

Exodus 40:18  When Moses set up the tabernacle, he put the bases in place, erected the frames, inserted the crossbars and set up the posts.
19  Then he spread the tent over the tabernacle and put the covering over the tent, as Yahweh commanded him.
20  He took the Testimony and placed it in the ark, attached the poles to the ark and put the atonement cover over it.
21  Then he brought the ark into the tabernacle and hung the shielding curtain and shielded the ark of the Testimony, as Yahweh commanded him.
22  Moses placed the table in the Tent of Meeting on the north side of the tabernacle outside the curtain
23  and set out the bread on it before Yahweh, as Yahweh commanded him.
24  He placed the lampstand in the Tent of Meeting opposite the table on the south side of the tabernacle
25  and set up the lamps before Yahweh, as Yahweh commanded him.
26  Moses placed the gold altar in the Tent of Meeting in front of the curtain
27  and burned fragrant incense on it, as Yahweh commanded him.
28  Then he put up the curtain at the entrance to the tabernacle.
29  He set the altar of burnt offering near the entrance to the tabernacle, the Tent of Meeting, and offered on it burnt offerings and grain offerings, as Yahweh commanded him.

Turkel:
Don't forget this:

1 Kings 2:26 And unto Abiathar the priest said the king, Get thee to Anathoth, unto thine own fields; for thou art worthy of death: but I will not at this time put thee to death, because thou barest the ark of the Lord GOD before David my father, and because thou hast been afflicted in all wherein my father was afflicted.

So what happened to that famous Till-bility to quote Scripture?

Till:
There is no doubt that the Old Testament teaches that care of the ark was entrusted to Abiathar, but being entrusted with the ark didn't mean that the individual personally carried it.  The Bible is filled with examples, like the ones I quoted above, where acts were done through agency and not directly and personally by the person said to have done such and so.

All of this, however, is irrelevant, because I cited an example (which Turkel skipped, of course, with only a fleeting reference that was barely recognizable) of priests entrusted with the care of the ark but who were far from being paragons of priestly virtue.  I'll quote that section again, which Robert "Snip-and-Skip" Turkel didn't want his readers to see again.

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.

Just to rub a little salt in Turkel's wounds, I decided to interrupt here and quote exactly what the Bible said about the morality of Hopni and Phinehas.

1 Samuel 2:12  Eli's sons were wicked men; they had no regard for Yahweh.
13  Now it was the practice of the priests with the people that whenever anyone offered a sacrifice and while the meat was being boiled, the servant of the priest would come with a three-pronged fork in his hand.
14  He would plunge it into the pan or kettle or caldron or pot, and the priest would take for himself whatever the fork brought up. This is how they treated all the Israelites who came to Shiloh.
15  But even before the fat was burned, the servant of the priest would come and say to the man who was sacrificing, "Give the priest some meat to roast; he won't accept boiled meat from you, but only raw."
16  If the man said to him, "Let the fat be burned up first, and then take whatever you want," the servant would then answer, "No, hand it over now; if you don't, I'll take it by force."
17  This sin of the young men was very great in the Lord's sight, for they were treating the Lord's offering with contempt.

Five verses interrupted the narrative to tell about other children who were born to Samuel's mother Hannah, and then the escapades of Hopni and Phinehas continued.

22  Now Eli, who was very old, heard about everything his sons were doing to all Israel and how they slept with the women who served at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting.
23  So he said to them, "Why do you do such things? I hear from all the people about these wicked deeds of yours.
24  No, my sons; it is not a good report that I hear spreading among the Lord's people.
25  If a man sins against another man, God may mediate for him; but if a man sins against Yahweh, who will intercede for him?" His sons, however, did not listen to their father's rebuke, for it was the Lord's will to put them to death.

So even though they were priests, Hopni and Phinehas corrupted the sacrifices at the altar and committed adultery with women who worked in the tabernacle.  Yet when there was war with the Philistines, Hopni and Phinehas were entrusted with the care of the ark of the covenant (1 Sam. 4:3-4).  Obviously, then, priests who were entrusted with the ark of the covenant weren't necessarily paragons of righteousness.  Certainly, Hopni and Phinehas were not "sticklers for the law," even though they had been entrusted with the ark of the covenant.

I'll now resume the quotation from my first reply, which Turkel hopped, skipped, and jumped over.

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.

The flushing sound you just heard was Turkel's attempt to make Abiathar a "renowned priest" on the grounds that he had "carried the ark" going down the toilet.

Turkel [quoting Till]:
But we're not through yet. It's said, "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'?"

Till:
That's a good question, so I will ask it again.  How would it, Turk?

Turkel:
Well, d'oh!

Till:
Turkel tries to joke his way out of another jam.

Turkel:
Do you work under a great king like David, a king eminently loyal to God other than a few blecks, for 40 years and do so without being A-1 rated on following the law?

Till:
Well, let's see how Turkel's argument holds up.  Eli served as priest and judge of Israel for 40 years (1 Sam. 4:18).  By the way, has anyone else noticed how the duration of reigns and other events in the Bible had a coincidental way of lasting 40 years?

Unlike his sons, Eli was a priest who respected the law and deplored the unrighteousness of his sons.  When the child Samuel, who became one of the great prophets in Israel, was dedicated to Yahweh by his mother Hannah, Eli was entrusted with the child's care. Despite Eli's righteousness, however, the service of Hopni and Phinehas under the leadership of their father did not keep them from becoming so corrupt that  Yahweh vowed to destroy the house of Eli.  I pointed out before--and Turkel skipped this too--that Abiathar was a descendant of Eli, so Solomon's banishment of Abiathar was said to have been done in order to fulfill Yahweh's prophecy against the house of Eli.  To drive another nail in the coffin of Turkel's, er, Casey's explanation of the Abiathar problem, I'll just quote both versions of Yahweh's curse on the house of Eli.

1 Samuel 2:27  Now a man of God came to Eli and said to him, "This is what Yahweh says: ‘Did I not clearly reveal myself to your father's house when they were in Egypt under Pharaoh?
28  I chose your father out of all the tribes of Israel to be my priest, to go up to my altar, to burn incense, and to wear an ephod in my presence. I also gave your father's house all the offerings made with fire by the Israelites.
29  Why do you scorn my sacrifice and offering that I prescribed for my dwelling? Why do you honor your sons more than me by fattening yourselves on the choice parts of every offering made by my people Israel?'
30  "Therefore Yahweh , the God of Israel, declares: ‘I promised that your house and your father's house would minister before me forever.' But now Yahweh declares: ‘Far be it from me! Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.
31  The time is coming when I will cut short your strength and the strength of your father's house, so that there will not be an old man in your family line
32  and you will see distress in my dwelling. Although good will be done to Israel, in your family line there will never be an old man.
33  Every one of you that I do not cut off from my altar will be spared only to blind your eyes with tears and to grieve your heart, and all your descendants will die in the prime of life.
34  And what happens to your two sons, Hophni and Phinehas, will be a sign to you--they will both die on the same day.'"

The curse was repeated to the child Samuel.

1 Samuel 3:10  Yahweh came and stood there, calling as at the other times, "Samuel! Samuel!" Then Samuel said, "Speak, for your servant is listening."
11  And Yahweh said to Samuel: "See, I am about to do something in Israel that will make the ears of everyone who hears of it tingle.
12  At that time I will carry out against Eli everything I spoke against his family--from beginning to end.
13  For I told him that I would judge his family forever because of the sin he knew about; his sons made themselves contemptible, and he failed to restrain them.
14  Therefore, I swore to the house of Eli, ‘The guilt of Eli's house will never be atoned for by sacrifice or offering.'"

As I noted in my first reply, in a section that Turkel skipped over, Abiathar was a descendant of Eli, so in this respect, it could be concluded that Saul's massacre of the house of Ahimelech after the incident at Nob was done to fulfill the prophecies against the house of Eli quoted above.  I know, I know, it just doesn't seem right to wipe out 85 priests years later for something they didn't do, but that was just Yahweh's way.  The escape of Abiathar kept the prophecy from being completely fulfilled, and so when Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood and banished him to Anathoth, the inspired writer--inspired by the Holy Spirit, of course--said that this was done to complete the prophecy against the house of Eli.

1 Kings 2:27  So Solomon removed Abiathar from the priesthood of Yahweh, fulfilling the word Yahweh had spoken at Shiloh about the house of Eli.

It would be entirely consistent with other biblical passages to think that Yahweh pulled the strings in the life of Abiathar to bring about this alleged fulfillment.  After all, Yahweh rather routinely hardened the hearts of people to give him an excuse to whack them.

Besides the references to Yahweh's hardening Pharaoh's heart, we have these.

Deuteronomy 2:30  But Sihon king of Heshbon refused to let us pass through. For Yahweh your God had made his spirit stubborn and his heart obstinate in order to give him into your hands, as he has now done.

Joshua 11:19  Except for the Hivites living in Gibeon, not one city made a treaty of peace with the Israelites, who took them all in battle.
20  For it was Yahweh himself who hardened their hearts to wage war against Israel, so that he might destroy them totally, exterminating them without mercy, as Yahweh had commanded Moses.

Isaiah 63:17  Why, O Yahweh, do you make us wander from your ways and harden our hearts so we do not revere you?

Poor Abiathar!  The guy didn't have a chance.  Once Yahweh had pronounced the curse on the house of Eli, Abiathar's fate was sealed.  Turkel, however, wants us to believe that Yahweh would treat a "renowned priest" who was a "stickler for the law" like this.

The sound you just heard was a second flushing to send down the residue of Turkel's, er, Casey's explanation of the Abiathar problem.

I've taken the time to present again the information about Hopni and Phinehas and Abiathar's ties to the house of Eli, so I will ask Turkel to address it this time.  He should realize that he can duck and dodge and bob and weave and snip and skip only so long before some of his own inner circle will begin to wonder why he ignores so many arguments.

Turkel:
Do you get to carry the most sacred object in Judaism if you are under this king and your nose is not clean?

Till:
Well, Turkel has yet to prove that Abiathar actually, in person, carried the ark, but the detailed information that I just repeated about Hopni and Phinehas and the curse on Eli's house shows that Turkel's quibble is without merit.  He may as well have asked if Hopni and Phinehas would have been entrusted with the care of the ark unless their noses had been clean?

Would they have, Turkel?

Turkel:
How many crayons does Till, the Church of Christ preacher with the degree from Bam Bam Bible College where we bet even suggesting using extrabiblical sources might get you thrown in the slammer, need before he can connect the dots? Was his 30 years of service at his community college accomplished by eating chips and drinking beer and telling students to write papers only if they felt like it?

Till:
Turkel again resorts to personal attacks and insults to try to distract attention from his complete inability to answer my rebuttal.  By the way, that "Bam Bam Bible College" I graduated from is consistently ranked in Newsweek magazine as one of the top universities in the South.  And, oh, yes, I don't drink beer.  I never have.  I don't even know what it tastes like, because I have always been a teetotaler.

The time Turkel spends on stuff like this and composing imaginary Till/McKinsey and Hyper/Turkel conversations could have been spent trying to answer my arguments and rebuttals, but, of course, he can't answer my arguments, so he has to spend his time beating on straw men.

Turkel:
He proposes to "show later that priests who accompanied the ark were sometimes moral reprobates," but unless he corresponds that with being under a king like David, and staying in that position under such a king for such an extended period, it's just the usual shazam, and yes, it will be.

Till:
Well, I have been through the example of Hopni and Phinehas again--in much more detail this time--and have shown that they served as priests under their father, who was a righteous judge and priest in Israel for--what a coincidence--forty years, yet their long service under a righteous priest and judge didn't keep them from corruption.  Furthermore, my rebuttal example has shown that Turkel's paragon of priestly respectability, i. e., Abiathar, was a descendant of Eli and therefore a subject of the curse pronounced by Yahweh on the house of Eli.  The banishment that Solomon pronounced on him allegedly fulfilled Yahweh's prophecy against the house of Eli.  Turkel needs to explain how a "renown priest," who was a stickler for the law and who had an "ephod" he could use to "inquire of Yahweh" would have sided against Solomon, who was Yahweh's choice to succeed David.

Will Turkel address this rebuttal the next time around, or will he spend his time spinning insults about Bam Bam Bible College and my 30 years of tenure at a community college, from which I was never laid off, by the way.  I believe Turkel was laid off from his prison library job, wasn't he?

Turkel:
Ulansey needed no specific statement from Mithraists to connect the dots, and be acclaimed by his peers for breaking open a new thesis of Mithraic origins;

Till:
When Turkel (1) shows the relevance of Ulansey's work on Mithraism and (2) gives enough information to explain and support whatever Ulansey concluded, I'll consider answering this.  Until then I‘ll just dump one of his own comments back into his lap...

At any rate, I would add that this still has nothing to do with the issue of Abiathar's priestly renown and is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article, as well as provide a "pep rally" for believers in biblical inerrancy.

Turkel:
nor do we need it spelled out in 3-letter words

Till:
I need to translate this for readers who are new to the quibbling and evasion of biblicists trying to defend biblical inerrancy.  Turkel is saying that he has no way to rebut my examples of Hopni and Phinehas, which I used to show that being entrusted with the ark of the covenant was no guarantee of priestly virtue or renown, and so he has to try to dance around the problem with personal insults that do nothing to rebut the argument.  He apparently thinks that if he resorts to ridicule often enough some of his admirers may think that he is actually answering something.

Turkel:
just for the satisfaction of a former fundamentalist who is still a fundamentalist.

Till:
Hmm, Turkel believes in the inerrancy of an ancient collection of superstitious writings filled with tales about gods who routinely dropped in to chat with people, resurrections  from the dead, men who walked unharmed through a fiery furnace, animals that talked in human language, etc., etc., etc., and I'm the fundamentalist?

Well, if he says so, but I'll let readers decide which one of us is the duller tack in the box.

Turkel:
Now on epi. Let's recall that Till wanted this to mean, "before" as in, David was before the priest in a legal sense. I said he was floundering in Strong' without a license. "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," he says. In other words he was driving a limo rather than a pickup, but it turns out he had the same accident.

Till:
I'm glad Turkel brought epi up, because he has yet even to try to address the examples I quoted to show how epi was used in this sense.  I will reinsert them again so that Turkel can evade them again, and I will also include my rebuttal arguments that accompanied the quotations.

This is typical of the kind of verbal gymnastics that biblicists will resort to in order to try to make the Bible not say what it clearly says.  In Greek, the text does not say that David went into the house of God "in the time of Abiathar the high priest."  It says that he entered into  the house of God  "[epi] Abiathar the high priest."  The Greek word for "time" is not in the text, and epi was a Greek preposition that had many uses, just as some English prepositions, have many uses. A comparative examination of the way epi was used in the New Testament will show convincing evidence that  its use in Mark 2:26 was intended to convey the sense of to or into or before [in the sense of "in the presence of"].  Here are some examples of how epi was used in other passages.

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....

I'm also going to quote what I said in my second-round reply, after Turkel had evaded them the first time around.

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.

Now this is the second time that Turkel has completely ignored these examples and my rebuttal arguments that accompanied them.  If he ignores them again, there won't be much doubt that he has no satisfactory reply to them.

Turkel:
I note that "no commentary takes epi here to mean physical location," to which he gripes:

Till [quoted by Turkel]:
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:
It's real easy.

Till:
No, actually it's really easy.  Adjectives are modified by adverbs, not other adjectives.  I would think that an expert in biblical languages would know at least this much about his native language.

Turkel:
I live near one of the largest seminaries in the Southeast. They had 17 commentaries on Mark ranging variably in date and ideological slant.

Till:
And 17 commentaries on Mark are all the commentaries that have been written on this biblical book? 

Your assertion was that "no commentary takes epi here to mean physical location," and to know that this is a true statement, you would have had to have read all of the commentaries that had ever been written on this book.

I'll take the time to give you the benefit of some of the things I learned about writing in the 30 years that I taught at a "community college."  You should have said, "I have consulted seventeen commentaries on Mark, and none of them takes epi here to mean physical location."  Of course, when one's aim is to see how much hackwork he can crank out per day, attention to details like this are probably going to be neglected.

Turkel:
All but one opted to see epi as meaning either "when" or "in the days of" -- a time reference.

Till:
Well, I've addressed that possible meaning too, but, of course, Turkel hopped, skipped, and jumped over that part of my reply too. Either way epi is interpreted, Turkel is--to borrow a term from him--roadkill.  I'll have to reinsert the section he skipped after I have commented on his quibbles below.

Bur first, I want to ask Turkel if any of those 17 commentaries that he consulted at one of the largest seminaries in the Southeast acknowledged that the reference to Abiathar in Mark 2:26 was an error.  Did this seminary have, for example, The Anchor Bible Dictionary?  If so, maybe Turkel read this in volume 1, p.13, under the heading ABIATHAR.

There is some confusion concerning the relationship between Abiathar and Ahimelech. In 2 Sam 8:17 the MT reads "Ahimelech the son of Abiathar," which conflicts with 1 Sam 23:26 and 30:7, whereas the Syriac reads "Abiathar son of Ahimelek." The Hebrew of 1 Chr 18:16 points to a similar confusion, but reads "Abimelech son of Abiathar." The LXX, Syr, and Vg suggest "Ahimelech" in line with 2 Sam 8:17.

The reference to Abiathar in Mark 2:26 is usually explained as a result of this confusion in 2 Sam 8:17. However, it is difficult to see how Mark could have made such an error when the reference was to the incident with David at Nob where he accepted the consecrated bread from Ahimelech. The parallel passages in Mat 12:1-8 and Luke 6:1-5 both omit any reference to Abiathar.

Did this seminary have The Interpreter's One-Volume Commentary of the Bible?  If so, maybe Turkel read this comment on the reference to Abiathar in Mark 2:26.

2:26  The reference When Abiathar was high priest has two inaccuracies: (a) There was no high priest in David's time; this office developed much later.  (b) The OT account (1 Sam. 21:1-6) gives the name of the priest as Ahimelech.  Matt. 12:4; Luke 6:4 correct these errors.  Mark characteristically reflects less accurate knowledge of Palestine, the OT, and Jewish affairs in general than Matt. and Luke.

Did this seminary have The Interpreter's Bible Commentary?  If so, Maybe Turkel read this comment in Volume 7 about Mark 2:26.

The priest was not Abiathar but Ahimelech, his father; some scholars suspect a gloss, but this is the simple kind of error that ancient tradition and even ancient authors sometimes made--e. g., Plato's quotations from Homer, where the names of persons are sometimes wrong. 

I didn't quote these sources to argue that because they say that the reference to Abiathar in Mark 2:26 was an error; it is therefore an error, so that settles the matter.  That is Turkel's style.  I quoted it simply to show that biblical reference works disagree with Casey's solution, which Turkel has tried to pan off on us without taking the time to support the claim.  One of the easiest things to do is find a book that agrees with one's religious beliefs.  Where is Turkel's supporting evidence?  That's what we want to see.

Turkel:
The one that differed read it as meaning, "in the section of the OT on Abiathar," an idea based on a parallel to Mark using epi in Mark 12:26. Not one single, solitary commentary said it meant "before" in the judicial sense Till wants it to mean,

Till:
I don't particularly "want" it to be "before" or "in the time of."  Either meaning, as I have shown (and Turkel has evaded), spells trouble for Turkel's recycling of Casey's explanation.

At any rate, I quoted translations of the New Testament that clearly attached the meaning of "before" or "in the presence of," but, surprise, surprise, Turkel hopped, skipped, and jumped over these too with just the fleeting comment below.  He had more important things to do, like composing insults about Bam Bam Bible College, Till's fundamentalism, and imaginary Till/McKinsey conversations. 

Turkel:
and if he wants to beg off to the two translations he found that use "before," then by his own reckoning, from the old Hosea 1:4 debate game of "quote the English versions to prove your point and the heck with detail [sic] linguistics," he's lost bad enough to need a cargo hold full of band-aids.

Till:
It just tickles me no end to see Turkel's frustration when he is backed into a corner.  Those who want to see what he is referring to about Hosea 1:4 can see how I nailed him by quoting over 20 different translations of the Old Testament, none of which agreed with the spin he was trying to put on Hosea 1:4.  He has been smarting about this ever since and often brings it up as an off-topic issue when he can't reply to my arguments.

Can Turkel say, "Straw man"?

Anyway, Turkel is about as qualified to talk about "detail[ed] linguistics" as I am qualified to perform brain surgery.  In another debate, I have already caught him in a mistake in Greek that was so flagrant that even he had to admit it.  He put the blame on an error in the software he was cutting and pasting from.

Turkel:
Not that we expect such consistency from Till in the first place -- the English versions are only right when they support him; otherwise, they're trying to cover an embarrassing error or something.

Till:
If the English versions uniformly agree on the meaning of a text, I modify my interpretations of the texts accordingly, unlike Turkel, who tries to pass himself off as an expert in biblical languages who knows more than the real experts.  As for attempts to cover embarrassing errors by intentional mistranslation, I am aware of some examples, but these can be easily confirmed by consulting lexicons, the Greek or Hebrew texts, and comparing translations.

So it is time for me to reinsert my quotations from Translations that Turkel snipped, skipped, and hopped over because they don't agree with him.

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?"

I'll just throw in another one  for good measure.

Hendrickson's Literal: And he said to them, Never did you read what did David when need he had and hungered, he and the ones with him; how he entered the house of God on Abiathar the high priest, and the loaves of presentation ate, which not is lawful to eat except the priests, and gave also to those with him?

I think that on is a preposition that denotes physical location, isn't it?  It seems that I recall something like that from my days of teaching English at a "community college."

Besides these, there are other translations, as I have noted, that rendered the expression in dispute as "when Abiathar was high priest."

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

Till [truncated by Turkel]:
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****

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

Till:
Now here is a classical example of Turkel's evasion.  Notice the **** above.  I put the bold ellipsis there to call attention to a section that Turkel had omitted, and it is a long detailed section, which I will reinsert.  I'll reinsert also the part that Turkel quoted above and then put the omitted rebuttal arguments and quotation after the **** so that everyone will see more clearly Turkel's flagrant evasion.  I'll put the reinserted section that Turkel omitted in italics so that readers can easily see just how much Turkel hopped, skipped, and jumped over.

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 high priesthood 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.

So here was a lengthy rebuttal argument, which I supported by quoting and analyzing three New Testament examples.  Turkel skipped over all of them, and his only comment was his complaint immediately below.

Turkel:
Till isn't polite enough to say what edition of BAGD he is using, or on what page he found this, but I dug out two editions, the 4th ed. from the 50s [286] and an edition published in 2000 (which has Danker on board, too [363-5]). And guess what -- this material completely fizzles his idea that epi could mean here, "before" in a sense of "appearance before an authority figure and an appearance in a legal situation". BAGD gives examples of those from 1 Tim. 6:13 and about half a dozen places.

Till:
I was using the 1960 edition of Arndnt & Gingrich, which discusses epi on pages 285-289.  I would think that someone who is as expert as Turkel presents himself in Greek would have no problem using a lexicon that alphabetically arranges the words.  The material on epi is arranged by sections classified and subclassified by I, 1, a, alpha, beta, gamma, delta, b, alpha, beta, gamma; 2, II, 1, a, alpha, beta, gamma, b, alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta, 2, 3; III, 1, a, alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta, b, alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon, zeta, eta, 2, a, b, 3.

The sense of on, upon, answering the question "where?" with the examples I cited (Matt. 6:10; Mark 6:47; Matt. 24:30; Mark 14:51, etc.) were discussed under I, 1, a, alpha.  The beta subsection here also discussed other examples of on, upon, but I didn't cite or quote any of them,

Section I, 1, 2 (p. 286) discussed examples of epi where the meaning was in the time of, under=during the administration of.  Some of the examples were Luke 4:27, Acts 11:27, and Luke 3:1, all of which I quoted but all of which Turkel skipped over along with my comments based on those quotations.  As a participant in a formal debate, I am now insisting that Turkel reply to these rebuttal examples and arguments that he has now evaded twice.  In this section, one of the examples that the authors cited was Mark 2:26. Hence, they were saying that in Mark 2:26 epi was used in the sense of under=during the administration of, so their opinion is that this verse was saying that David entered the house of God under the administration of Abiathar the high priest.

Section I, 1, delta (p. 286) was where epi in the sense of "before" or "in the presence" of was discussed.  Turkel may claim that the edition of Arndt and Gingrich "completely fizzle[d]" my idea of what epi could have meant in Mark 2:26, but this was not my "idea."  It was an "idea" supported by the lengthy analysis of epi in Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon.  Even Turkel admitted that the edition he consulted cited 1 Timothy 6:13 as an example of this meaning of epi.

1 Timothy 6:13  In the sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who while testifying before [epi] Pontius Pilate made the good confession, I charge you
14  to keep this command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ....

This section also cited other examples that I quoted, which Turkel has also ignored, i.e., Acts 25:10, 2 Corinthians 7:14, Acts 23:30, Acts 24:20, etc., so perhaps Turkel would care to explain to us why Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon "completely fizzle[d]" my "idea."

I look forward to seeing Turkel ignore these examples again.  It will let our readers know that he skips that which he cannot answer.

Turkel:
Mark 2:26 is conspicuously missing from that batch.

Till:
Well, as I noted above, Mark 2:26 was listed in Section I, 1, 2 (p. 286), where examples of epi in the sense of under=during the administration of were given.  Turkel seems to be having a hard time understanding that whether the writer of Mark meant for epi  to convey the sense of "before" or "in the presence of" or the sense of "under=during the administration of" doesn't really matter, because either meaning makes Turkel's spin on the verse.... well, completely fizzle.

Turkel:
Till quietly dodges this and whistles that Mark 2:26 means, "under the administration of Abiathar the high priest,"

Till:
No, I discussed two possible meanings of epi, one of which was "under=during the administration of, so I wasn't dodging anything, because, as I just noted, whether it meant "before" or "in the presence of" or whether it meant "under=during the administration of," isn't too important, because either meaning spells trouble for Turkel's, uh, Casey's spin on the verse.

Anyway, isn't Turkel a fine one to accuse me of dodging something?  He had just skipped over entirely a complete set of examples I had quoted in support of my position, and then he accused me of dodging.  One thing he isn't short of is unmitigated gall.

His readers should be insulted, because such tactics as this indicate that he thinks his readers won't have the intelligence to remember what was said in the previous exchanges.

Turkel:
which sorry, is not "appearance before an authority figure and an appearance in a legal situation".

Till:
Pardon me for disagreeing.  An appearance before someone who had incorrectly been designated a "high priest" would not be an appearance before an authority figure?

The appearance of a nonpriest in the "house of God" to ask for bread that was lawful (Mark2:26) only for priests to eat would not have been an appearance in a legal situation? Turkel will excuse me for disagreeing with that too. 

He seems to think that all he has to do is simply make an assertion, and it will automatically stand by virtue of who is making it.  He has been preaching to his choir too long, so maybe it will take him a while to understand that skeptics will demand more than just his mere word.

Turkel:
That's a different part of BAGD's entry under epi. So Till made a big booboo here, and isn't willing to admit it, and hopes like heck no one will notice.

Till:
I love it when Turkel puts his foot into his mouth.  I just can't resist shoving it in a little farther.  Look at what I said and not at what Turkel said that I said.

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. 

My first paragraph discussed Arndt and Gingrich's definition of epi in the sense of meaning "place, on, upon, answering the question ‘where?'" Then my second paragraph clearly noted that their second definition was under=during the administration of, so where is the "big booboo" here?

Later on, I said the following, while discussing the various examples of usage that were given in this lexicon.

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.

So clearly I was informing my readers that I was discussing different sections of this lexicon's discussion of epi.  If Turkel wouldn't rush so frantically to throw together cut-and-pasted, snipped-and-skipped "replies," so that he could boast of how many "megs" he has posted in reply to me, he might actually notice what I am saying in my postings.  Hackwork does have its pitfalls, and we are seeing them in Turkel's work.

I will continue my reply in Part Three