The Skeptical Review Online - Turkel Takes The Bait / Part Two

Till:
In Part One, I showed that Turkel had made a strategic mistake by admitting that the Old Testament account of David's flight from Saul does not "specifically say" that men were with David. I then pointed out something in Mark 2:26, which I had until then left unemphasized. Jesus said to the accusers of his disciples that they could have read that David ate the showbread and gave some of it to those who were with him. If, however, Turkel admits that the OT did not "specifically say" that men were with David, then Jesus--or the writer of Mark--erred in saying that the accusers of his disciples could have read about these men.

My position is that there are three mistakes in this passage: (1) Jesus said that David went in to the priest Abiathar when in reality Ahimelech was the priest involved. (2) Jesus said that men were with David when an analysis of the story of David's flight from Saul gives every indication that David was alone. (3) Jesus said that the accusers could have read that David had given some of the showbread to those who were with him. So far, I have concentrated only on the first two, but now my emphasis will be on the third one because of Turkel's admission that the OT account did not "specifically say" that men were with David, because if the OT account didn't specifically say that men were with David, no one could have read that David gave some of the showbread to those who were with him.

Turkel hasn't even come close to resolving the first two discrepancies in this passage, and his admission that the OT account didn't mention any men with David is going to make it rather difficult for him as he now undertakes to explain how anyone could have read about men eating bread who were not even mentioned in a text. I have often said that a mistake is a mistake, so in the case of Mark 2:26, it doesn't really matter whether I show conclusively that numbers one and two were mistakes. I believe that I have shown this to the satisfaction of any reasonable person. However, it doesn't matter whether I establish beyond all doubt whether these two were actual mistakes, for if number three is a mistake, then Mark 2:26 is not an inerrant passage of scripture, because there is at least one mistake in it, and all I have ever argued in my writings on biblical discrepancies is that the Bible is not an inerrant book. Just one mistake in it establishes that I am right.

Now compare this to the situation that Turkel and all other biblical inerrantists find themselves in. If they prove that alleged discrepancy A is not really a discrepancy, they have not made their case, because it is still possible that alleged discrepancy B, C, D, E, F... Z are real discrepancies. With literally millions of bits of information in the whole Bible text, the inerrantist finds himself on an impossible mission when he sets out to establish inerrancy in the Bible.

Jesus said that the accusers of his disciples could have read that David gave some of the showbread to those who were with him, but Turkel has admitted that the OT account of David's flight from Saul doesn't specifically say that men were with David. So how could the accusers of Jesus's disciples have read that David had given some of the showbread to men who were with him? That's the problem that Turkel faces from this point on in the debate.

His admirers should not despair, because Turkel is certainly going to come back with a how-it-could-have-been explanation. They should expect to see, however, a maze of hypothetical Till/McKinsey conversations, imaginary phone calls from Hyper the Literalist, and lots of references to "Bam Bam Bible College," because when all else has failed him, Turkel will turn to amateurish attempts at humor to try to joke his way out of whatever corner he is in, as if it is somehow my fault that the Bible says what it says.

Me? I just stick to what the Bible says, and in this case the Bible says that Jesus said that the accusers of his disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him. I'll look forward to seeing Turkel quote the specific language in the OT account that the accusers could have read to let them know that David had indeed given showbread to men who were with him. Turkel can quote the text after his ID marker that I am typing below for his convenience.

Turkel:

Turkel:
Our goal has been, and still is, to show that Till's inferences are invalid, anachronistic, and one-dimensional.

Till:
Just where is the implication in the text below?

Mark 2:26 But He said to them, "Have you never read what David did when he was in need and hungry, he and those with him: ²⁶how he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?"

There is nothing here that calls for an inference. Jesus specifically said--or so "Mark" said--that Jesus asked the accusers of his disciples if they had never read that David gave some of the showbread to those who were with him.

Just where could the accusers have read this in the story of David's flight from Saul? Turkel can quote it in the space after his ID tag below.

Turkel:

Turkel:
In answering the latter we have proposed certain scenarios which Till refers to often as "how-it-could-have-been" stories. Let's begin by dealing broadly with this charge, as it is one Till often brings up against opponents whenever he finds himself presented with arguments he is unable to refute with actual data.

Till:
Yes, let's do talk about how-it-could-have-beens. Turkel has admitted that the OT does not "specifically say" that men were with David, so if Turkel postulates that men were with David even though the text doesn't specifically say that they were, he has resorted to a how-it-could-have-been, hasn't he?

If not, why not?

Turkel:
The charge of "how it could have beening" (which we will hereafter call "hichbing" for brevity) assumes a certain judgment upon a text like the Bible. The Bible was written in what anthropologists call a "high-context" society, in which people assumed a broadly shared, "high" knowledge of the context of anything referred to in speech or writing. Readers were required and expected to "fill in the gap" because their background knowledge was a given. Extended explanations were unnecessary. As an example, note the story of the woman at the well in John 4. This story is full of background templates that John does not explain, but that make the story meaningful: For example, the time of the meeting (noon) shows that the woman is an outcast, for it is not the time when water is normally gathered and when socialization occurs among the village women, but John sees no need to explain why the time is unusual for he assumes his readers will know that it is just by that he says it is noon.

Till:
Turkel is full of theories, but he never bothers to explain them. How, for example, does he know that the fact that the woman had come to the well at noon meant that she was a social outcast? What are his criteria for making this determination? If he can somehow produce evidence to show that it was the custom in this particular area for women to come for water earlier in the morning, that still would not prove his claim. How would he know that some special kind of circumstance on that particular day had not brought the woman to the well at noon? How does he know that she didn't come earlier for water but that some need had arisen for her to go back for more? Turkel is always long on conjecture but short on evidence.

He said, for example, that the woman was a social outcast, an assumption that he no doubt made from the reference to her having had five husbands, but did Turkel ever notice this statement in the text about what the woman did after her conversation with Jesus?

John 4:28 Then the woman left her water jar and went back to the city. She said to the people, ²⁹"Come and see a man who told me everything I have ever done! He cannot be the Messiah, can he?"

So the woman wasn't so much of an "outcast" that she wasn't on speaking terms with the people in the town.

Anyway, how does this explain that the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to men with him when Turkel admits that the OT account didn't specifically mention any men with David? He can put the explanation after his ID marker below.

Turkel:

Turkel:
In contrast, we in the modern USA are a "low-context" society. We assume little or no knowledge of the context of a communication. This is in part because we have so many specialized fields requiring specialized knowledge. Thus we expect background to be given when communication is given between fields.

Till:
The fallacy in Turkel's argument is that he reduces the biblical text to a communication that was intended only for the people of a particular period of time when in reality biblicists believe that it was intended for all mankind for as long as the world stands, so Turkel's argument makes the Holy Spirit a bungling idiot who was unable to "inspire" linguistic clarity in the writers whom he chose to record "God's word" for all time. Presumably, if the world stands for a billion more years and becomes so technologically advanced that our society, comparatively speaking, would appear primitive, the church (as if it will survive nearly that long) would need thousands of Turkels to specialize in "Ancient Near Eastern" languages and "concepts" so that they could explain to the unspecialized what was meant in "God's word," which an omniscient, omnipotent "inspirer" was unable to guide the writers to express in language clear enough to be understood. When one sees a biblicist resorting to the type of rationalizing that Turkel is now engaging in, he can know that the biblicist really recognizes that there are serious problems in a text that was presumably "inspired" by an omniscient, omnipotent deity.

Anyway, how would any of this explain why Jesus said that the accusers of his disciples could have read that David gave showbread to men with him when in reality--and even by Turkel's own admission--the OT account did not "specifically say" that men were with David? Turkel's task, then, is to show how anyone could read about that which was not even mentioned in a text. He can put his answer below after his ID marker.

Turkel:

Turkel:
Till's criticism of "hichbing" can be valid to the extent that a scenario is unreasonable in its context. If he found some complaint for John 4, to which we were able to give "noon was not the usual gathering time for water" as an answer, we give an answer that is germane and relevant to the context of the social world; if we gave an answer like, "she was at the well at noon because she wanted to not miss The Bold and the Beautiful at 1:00", our answer is not relevant or germane, but absurd.

Till:
Yes, Turkel tried to fly this same kite in his attempt to show that Jesus had intentionally referred to Abiathar instead of Ahimelech, because Abiathar was a "renowned priest" who was known as a "stickler for the law." I shot this down in Part (1) of my second-round replies to the Abiathar problem.

How would anything that Turkel has said about the woman at the well explain how people could have read about men getting showbread from David in a text that made--by Turkel's own admission--no such reference? He can put his answer after his ID marker below.

Turkel:

Turkel:
Till readily applies the "hichbing" charge without any discretion or analysis whatsoever. If we present a scenario which is reasonable within the context, then his charge is merely distractive and a non-answer [sic].

Till:
Does anyone see Turkel explaining anything here? If so, let me know, because I am missing it completely. If he thinks that he has presented "scenarios" that are "reasonable within the context," then maybe he could present a scenario that would explain how the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to men in a text that didn't mention any such incident. He can put his answer below after his ID marker.

Turkel:

Turkel:
It is also distractive for him to arbitrarily designate new contexts (his own form of "hichbing") without any reference to the social background -- i.e., his attempt to compare Yahweh's "ownership" of the land with the management of the USA over this land,

Till:
I'll bet that Turkel considers this even more "distractive" than his attempt to compare the "high context" society of biblical times to the "low context" society of our time or his constant comparisons of the story in John 4 to a modern, daytime soap opera (The Bold and the Beautiful). By the way, the references that he keeps making to this makes me wonder if he is using the $70 to $80 per day that he solicits on his website to watch soap operas. I have never actually watched any of these programs, but the commercials that I see for them leads me to believe that they probably are on an intellectual level that would appeal to Turkel.

Anyway, I'll ask Turkel to distract us with an explanation of how the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read about David's giving showbread to his men in a text that made no mention at all of any such event. He can put his answer after his ID marker below.

Turkel:

Turkel:
or as it would be if he suggested, to get rid of our answers, that the woman went to the well at noon just because she happened to be thirsty at noon and had spilled her water supply.

Till:
Why not? If one is going to manufacture how-it-could-have-beens, these would be just as good as Turkel's. He claims that the woman was a social outcast and that was the reason why she was at the well at noon, but the text, as I noted, presents this woman as a person who was in communication with the people of her village.

We read later on in the text that the woman's testimony had a huge impact on the people of her village.

Verse 39 Many Samaritans from that city believed in him because of the woman's testimony, "He told me everything I have ever done." ⁴⁰So when the Samaritans came to him, they asked him to stay with them; and he stayed there two days. ⁴¹And many more believed because of his word. ⁴²They said to the woman, "It is no longer because of what you said that we believe, for we have heard for ourselves, and we know that this is truly the Savior of the world."

Notice that the people said that they had first believed in Jesus because of what the woman had said. Does that indicate that she was a social outcast? Would the people have first believed in Jesus just on the word of a woman who was the social outcast that Turkel has depicted her to be?

I sometimes wonder if Turkel ever looks before he leaps. He is so eager to throw together a response to me that he doesn't take the time to see if the texts he cites support the claim he is making.

Turkel:
These are not answers in context, but ways of preserving his responses against contrary data which he cannot refute.

Till:
Obviously, the context of John 4 does not support the spin that Turkel has tried to put on the reasons why the woman was at the well at noon. As for the "contrary data" that I can't refute, where are these data? I can't refute data that Turkel doesn't identify. I'll make a deal with him. If he will specify "data" that he thinks I haven't answered, I'll answer it. Then he can reciprocate and reply to rebuttals of mine that he has been dancing around ever since our debates began.

Turkel:
We will see this pattern repeated as well in his reply on the issue of the men with David.

Till:
Turkel is talking in abstractions, but if he ever identifies a "pattern," I'll reply to what he seems to think is wrong with it.

Meanwhile, I'll ask him to explain to us how the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read where David gave showbread to men with him in a text that didn't even mention any such event. He can put his explanation after his ID marker below.

Turkel:

Turkel:
It is said on our quote of Mark 2, "...I cited the NASV in my article, but he has used the KJV, which I have retained, because it doesn't matter which version is used." If it doesn't matter, why make a point of it?

Till:
Well, I will gladly explain this. Here is a direct quotation from Turkel's "reply" to my article.

From the last 1999 issue of TSR we have an item on Mark 2:25-28:

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? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

In reality, however, "we" did not have this item in the last 1999 issue of TSR, because my article in TSR had quoted from the NRSV and not the KJV. I was simply pointing out the way that Turkel takes liberties with whatever he is replying to. The liberty usually entails skipping entirely primary arguments and rebuttals of his opponents, so I was at least glad to see that he had quoted the verses entirely from a version rather than just giving his usual truncated summation. What the text says is important, and readers should have it before them as they examine this claim of inerrancy.

Since this came up, I have taken the time to emphasize in bold print the part of the text (quoted above) where Jesus asked the accusers if they had never read where David gave some of the showbread to those who were with him, so it is time to ask Turkel again how it would have been possible for the accusers to have read this in a text that made no mention of it. Turkel can put his explanation after his ID marker below.

Turkel:

Turkel:
I am accused of "misquoting" but who said I was quoting,

Till:
Could it be that I thought you were quoting because your text reads exactly like the KJV except for the modernized spelling of "showbread"?

Turkel:
and since it makes no difference, what is the difference? I use the KJV because it is the one version (that I know of) that has no copyright issues attached. King James and all his lawyers are dead. I do not know if the NASV is likewise available to quote without copyright issues, and do not care.

Till:
Oh, please, give me a break! When is the last time Turkel has heard of someone being sued for quoting the RSV, NRSV, or whatever? Besides, if he was familiar with copyright laws, he would know that quoting for educational purposes is permitted under the law.

Well, come to think of it, that would leave Turkel out, because there isn't much educational value in the hackwork that he cranks out.

Turkel:
Small quotes probably would be fair use;

Till:
They don't have to be just "small quotes." If the one quoting is using them for educational purposes, as I did many times in copying pages from books for distribution in my classes, this is permissible under the law.

Turkel:
given the vast number of quotes I must use on this site, I would rather not engage the matter. But either way, Till is citing this for no other reason that to score points with skeptics, since as he admits it doesn't matter what version is used. On that much we agree.

Till:
My, I certainly do a lot to score points with skeptics, don't I? Believe it or not, I agree with Turkel. My detailed rebuttals of biblicist nonsense has scored a lot of points not with just skeptics but with Bible believers, and I intentionally make my arguments and rebuttals specific and detailed for that very reason. I get a lot of mail from former believers telling me that they have found my work beneficial in finding their way out of biblical fundamentalism.

At this point, Turkel launched into a massive cutting-and-pasting job on the subject of situational ethnics, no doubt to score points with his admirers. In my original article, I made only a passing reference to situational ethics, so I am going to skip this section of Turkel's "reply" and go directly to his attempt to find the men who Jesus said were with David at the time of the Nob incident. I'll return to Turkel's cut-and-paste job on situational ethics after I have attended to matters of higher priority.

Turkel:
But now after all that we get to the main pont [sic] of the article, about the men with David.

Till:
At last! Now all Turkel needs to do is quote to us the passage in the OT account of David's flight where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to men who were with him. He can put it after his ID marker that I am typing below for his convenience.

Turkel:

Turkel:
It starts with a real good one from Till,

Till:
No, it starts with a really good one. As I have explained before, Turkel, who seems to know all about "nuances" in dead biblical languages should know a simple grammatical fact about his own language. Adjectives are modified with adverbs. "Real" as an adverb is a colloquialism used by those who don't know better. On second thought, then, maybe that excuses Turkel.

Turkel:
who has much to say about my typography and a concentrational gaffe later on. Noting that I typed 1 Samuel 20:1-5, Till writes:

I suspect Turkel meant to say 1 Samuel 21:1-5, but if he thinks this text "suggests" that there were men with David, maybe he will favor us with an explication of the passage to point out the language that "suggests" this.

Till:
Now that I have laid all of my cards on the table, I will add to this a request for Turkel to favor us with a quotation of the passage in the story of David's flight where the accusers of his disciples could have read that David gave some of the showbread to those who were with him. After all, Turkel said earlier that if Jesus said that men were with David, we can know that men were with David, so we should be able to extend that to include a claim that if Jesus said that the accusers could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him, then we should be able to read where the OT account says that.

So where is it?

Turkel:
More on that later, but first Till has this to say:

As I will show later, by quoting part of my article that Turkel skipped over, a proper interpretation of 1 Samuel 20:1-5 leads to the conclusion that in order to increase his chances of getting help from Ahimelech, David lied about having men in hiding nearby.

Urgh?!? "I suspect Till meant to say 1 Samuel 21:1-5...." Rather ironic justice, isn't it, especially since Till will make a phooey over a similar concentration gaffe I make later on.

Till:
Yes, I did mean to write 1 Samuel 21:1-5, but surely Turkel won't call his reference to "the king of Achish" just a "similar gaffe." If I had written that Moab was the king of Mesha that would have been a gaffe similar to Turkel's, which, as I pointed out earlier, he did twice in his article. The first time would be a gaffe maybe, but the second time would be an indication that he just didn't know better.

Turkel:
Anyway, we start with Till's plop in the bucket about five loaves not feeding that many men. After deflecting his embarrassment by complaining irrelevantly about word counts and my refusal to link to articles (always good to remind the readers of an old saw after you get cut by the new one),

Till:
Well, of course, Turkel would think that what I said about word counts was irrelevant, but I will remind readers again that my article had about 5,500 words, and Turkel quoted only about 500 of them in his so-called "reply" to my article. How can any reasonable person think that this would be an adequate response? Readers can check my original response to Turkel at to see for themselves just how much I reinserted to show readers the extent of Turkel's hatchet job on the article, and the insertions must have been effective, because they showed readers a detailed, section by section analysis of the account of David's flight, which forced Turkel to admit that the OT doesn't "specifically say" that men were with David. As long as he could keep those analyses from his readers Turkel could ridicule me for daring to say that the story properly interpreted must lead to the conclusion that David was alone in his flight, but now that he knows his readers have seen how textual analyses support my interpretation, Turkel is saying, "Well, the simple fact is that neither side has a strong case, because the OT doesn't specifically say that men were with David, so we have to determine that the men were there by inference."

That brings us back to what Jesus said to the accusers of his disciples: "Have you never read what David did... how he went into the house of God... and ate the showbread, which is not lawful to eat except for the priests, and also gave some to those who were with him?" So I will ask Turkel to show us where the accusers could have read this in a text that by Turkel's own admission did not "specifically say" that men were with David. Let him explain how anyone can "read" an inference. Readers reach inferences, but they don't read them.

He can put the answer after his ID marker below.

Turkel:

Turkel:
Till finally gets down to tacks and rejects my point, that "It would have lasted a contingent of five to ten men a full day, enough to get them to their next destination for food (David, a popular hero, would have had many allies), which is all that really matters." Why? Because, he says, there is no "textual evidence" and this is just a "how-it-could-have-been" scenario!

Till:
How many others have noticed that Turkel wants the liberty to see all kinds of "inferences" when he has no textual evidence on his side, but if I make a reasonable inference, he howls, "Where does the Bible say that?" How many remember when I said that David had felt guilty over the massacre of Abiathar's family on the basis of David‘s having said that he was "responsible" for the massacre? What was Turkel's reaction?

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!"

Turkel then launched into a cut-and-pasted job from some book whose author thought that feelings of guilt didn't exist in biblical times. As I pointed out in replying to this quibble, I had actually used the words "guilty" and "responsible" interchangeably and quoted 1 Samuel 22:22, where David had specifically said that he felt "responsible" for the massacre of the house of Abiathar's father. So when I make an inference of guilt from a statement like this, Turkel screams, "Where does the Bible say that David felt guilty?" However, when he reaches into thin air and declares that the five loaves that David received from Abiathar would have lasted a contingent of 10 men until they could get more help from David's many allies, he calls this a reasonable inference. I call it an argument from silence.

I, of course, replied in detail to Turkel's conjecture that David had many allies along the way, and so he could have stopped just about anywhere to get food he needed, but in his typical fashion, Turkel just hopped, skipped, and jumped right over this. I will now reinsert it so that readers will see that I replied in detail to this conjecture.

Turkel mentioned that I had argued that the contexts of 1 Samuel 20-21 make it clear that David was alone on his flight, so all I have to do to reply to Turkel is simply quote my analyses of those chapters to show that my conclusion was correct. Before I do that, however, I need to comment on an assertion that he made above when he said that five loaves of bread would have been sufficient to last a "contingent of five to ten men a full day," which would have been long enough to last them until they got to "their next destination for food." David was a "popular hero," Turkel said, and so he would have had "many allies."

Once again, we see Turkel grabbing an explanation out of thin air--as he did in the Abiathar matter--without offering a shred of textual evidence. Why do you suppose he posits how-it-could-have-been scenarios without trying to substantiate them with textual evidence? The answer should be clear to anyone who bothers to read the Old Testament account of David‘s flight from Saul. Verses 1-9 in chapter 21 related David's encounter with Ahimelech, which resulted in his obtaining bread and Goliath's sword from the priest, and then the very next verse.... Well, let's just look at what happened beginning with verse 10.

21:10 David rose and fled that day from Saul; he went to King Achish of Gath.
11 The servants of Achish said to him, "Is this not David the king of the land? Did they not sing to one another of him in dances, ‘Saul has killed his thousands, and David his ten thousands'?"
12 David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of King Achish of Gath.
13 So he changed his behavior before them; he pretended to be mad when in their presence. He scratched marks on the doors of the gate, and let his spittle run down his beard.
14 Achish said to his servants, "Look, you see the man is mad; why then have you brought him to me?
15 Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? Shall this fellow come into my house?"

No references are made to stopping points between Nob and Gath so that David could get more food from some of his many "allies." The location of Nob is uncertain, but it was in Benjamite territory (Neh. 11:32), which would have put it close to Jerusalem and Gibeah, the town from which David began his flight. Isaiah 10:30-32 also located it close to the "hill of Jerusalem."

Isaiah 10:30 Cry aloud, O daughter Gallim! Listen, O Laishah! Answer her, O Anathoth!
31 Madmenah is in flight, the inhabitants of Gebim flee for safety.
32 This very day he will halt at Nob, he will shake his fist at the mount of daughter Zion, the hill of Jerusalem.

Gath was located in Philistine territory about 30 miles southwest of Jerusalem, so the narrator of this story took David from Nob, within fist-shaking distance of Jerusalem, to Gath in just one six-word sentence. Turkel can--and probably will--argue that the failure to mention other stops for food between Nob and Gath doesn't mean that such stops weren't made. That would be true, but if David had these "many allies" between Nob and Gath that Turkel conjured up out of nowhere, then David didn't use common sense in going to the tabernacle in Nob to ask for Ahimelech's food. A sacred location like this would have been too visible a risk to take if David knew that he had other "allies" in more secluded places from whom he could have obtained food. The fact that he risked being seen by going to the tabernacle is a strong implication that he felt that he had no other choice. As it was, he was seen at Nob by Doeg the Edomite, who reported the sighting to Saul and brought about the massacre of the priests at Nob. If we add this risk factor to all the evidence presented in my textual analysis below, which showed that David was alone in his flight, we can write off the "many allies" that Turkel spoke of as just more speculation necessitated by his desire to find harmony in the Bible.

I followed these comments with a detailed analysis of 1 Samuel 20 to show that the text simply does not allow for these men that Turkel wants to claim by "inference." This analysis must have been pretty convincing, because it forced Turkel to admit that the OT does not "specifically say" that men were with David. Having now admitted that, he has to explain to us how the accusers of Jesus could have read about that which was not mentioned in the text.

Turkel:
To which we can only say, "Is Farrell awake here?" No, more likely he's going back to that fundamentalist hermenutic [sic] he learned at Bible college. No, Farrell says, unless the text says David stopped somewhere, he obviously did not.

Till:
In this statement, we see clear evidence that Turkel either is not reading my rebuttals or else he is intentionally lying in hope that readers will not remember what I really said. Look at what I clearly said in the section that I quoted above from my earlier reply to Turkel. Notice in particular the statement emphasized in bold print.

Turkel can--and probably will--argue that the failure to mention other stops for food between Nob and Gath doesn't mean that such stops weren't made. That would be true, but if David had these "many allies" between Nob and Gath that Turkel conjured up out of nowhere, then David didn't use common sense in going to the tabernacle in Nob to ask for Ahimelech's food. A sacred location like this would have been too visible a risk to take if David knew that he had other "allies" in more secluded places from whom he could have obtained food. The fact that he risked being seen by going to the tabernacle is a strong implication that he felt that he had no other choice.

So I did not say that "unless the text says that David stopped somewhere, he obviously did not." To the contrary, I said it was true that David could have stopped even though it wasn't mention, but I then gave several reasons why it isn't logical to "infer" that he did stop along the way to get food from his many "allies": (1) The imminent danger that David was in coupled with the relatively short distance from Gibeah to Nob made it unlikely that David would have stopped anywhere else on this leg of the trip. (2) The fact that David took the risk of going into a place of high visibility to ask a priest for food would indicate that he had not stopped on this leg of the trip to ask "allies" to give him food. (3) The risk of going into a place of high visibility to ask for food would indicate--in other words, one could "infer" this--that David knew of no "allies" whose homes he could have gone to more secretly to ask for food. (4) The relatively short distance from Nob to Gath would indicate--in other words, one could "infer" this--that David didn't stop elsewhere for food once he had obtained enough food to last him on a flight of no more than 30 miles or so.

Instead of skipping over these arguments and then misrepresenting to his readers what I had said at this point of the debate, Turkel should try to answer my points. Of course, when one has nothing to answer with, he has to do only what is left for him to do, i.e., hop, skip, jump, and then misrepresent. At any rate, at this point, Turkel admitted that the OT story of David's flight did not "specifically say" that men were with David, so Turkel must now explain how the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to men who were not even mentioned in the narrative.

He can put his answer in the blank space after his ID marker below.

Turkel:

Till:
Oh, yes, in reference to the hermeneutics I learned at "Bible college," a principle of that hermeneutics was that the language of a text should be interpreted literally unless there are compelling reasons to assign figurative meaning. I later completed 90+ hours of postgraduate work, mostly in my professional field of English, so I took many courses that included the study of principles of literary interpretation. That same principle was also taught in those courses, so it seems to have rather wide professional acceptance.

In my discussions with Turkel, I have noticed that he has little respect for this principle of literary interpretation. Instead, he seems to follow an interpretation principle that says, "When the literal meaning of a text becomes problematic to a doctrine or belief one is trying to defend, figurative meaning should be applied to the language of the text." I doubt that he will ever find a textbook that says this is a sound principle of literary interpretation.

Turkel:
So that means no inferential reasoning is allowed, even inferential reasoning that uses facts (David's popularity) and reasonable gestures (that people who were allies lived along the path he took) along with social paradigms (the ancient law of hospitality to travellers).

Till:
Oh, by all means "inferential reasoning" is allowed, but inferences must be drawn from what the text says, and textual evidence to support Turkel's "inferences" is conspicuously absent in his replies, so he is confusing "inferential reasoning" with crass asserting. I just reviewed above the reasons why one can reasonably "infer" that David didn't seek the help of "allies" along the way, so why doesn't Turkel try to answer them? If there was an "ancient law of hospitality to travelers" that gives sufficient reason to conclude that David secured help from allies along the way, then why did David take the risk of going to a place of high visibility to ask a priest for help? Let Turkel give us a logical reason why David would have taken this risk if he had known that he could have just dropped into just about any private home along the way and asked for food without incurring the risk of being seen by someone who would report that he had been sighted.

More than that, though, Turkel needs to explain how the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that Jesus gave showbread to men who were with him when the story of David's flight, by Turkel's own admission, didn't "specifically say" that men were with David. How can anyone read in a text that which is not in the text?

Turkel:
The text is hemmed in by one of those yellow POLICE LINE -- DO NOT CROSS tapes. (That is, unless Till finds it convenient to cross to make his case; then it is just fine!)

Till:
I just wish Turkel would cross the tape and show us what the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that would have let them know that David gave showbread to men who were with him. He can put his answer after his ID marker below.

Turkel:

Turkel:
We can see that Farrell is sensitive to the fact that this makes him look a little foolish, since he obviously cannot deny that David was popular and had many allies who would as soon feed him as look at him: "Turkel can--and probably will--argue that the failure to mention other stops for food between Nob and Gath doesn't mean that such stops weren't made. That would be true...."

Till:
Ah, so Turkel did know that I had said that it was true that David could have stopped elsewhere. If he knew that, why did he make the statement that I just commented on above?

No, Farrell says, unless the text says David stopped somewhere, he obviously did not.

What's going on here? Is Turkel so confused that he doesn't know what he says from one paragraph to the other? Does he think his readers are so inattentive that they won't notice inconsistencies like this?

I think the first of the two possibilities is more likely the answer. Turkel cuts and pastes so quickly to crank out hackwork that never explains anything that he doesn't even recognize his inconsistencies.

Turkel:
Amazing! But now he tries to change the subject, since that one failed:

Till:
Well, as readers will immediately see, I didn't change the subject. Instead, I pursued the subject to show plausible reasons why Turkel's hypothesis that David had help available to him from many "allies" is untenable. I just quoted above exactly what I said about this, so readers will get a more complete picture of my rebuttal of Turkel's "inference" from the full quotation above than they will from his truncated version below.

Turkel:
"...if David had these ‘many allies' between Nob and Gath that Turkel conjured up out of nowhere" (actually, I did not say directly that they were all between Nob and Gath, though that would be the likeliest locale; what I said was that he had many allies, the inference being, it would not be hard to find, or meet, or have it arranged to meet, one or more allies, between the two locations),

Till:
Readers may scroll up and read exactly what I said in my rebuttal of this "inference" that Turkel has reached in a text that says absolutely nothing about stops David made or "allies" or friends he had along the way. Turkel has yet to answer my question. If David had so many friends and "allies" along the way, why did he go to the tabernacle, a place of high visibility, to ask for help when he could have just dropped in secretly in one of the many private homes along the way to ask for food without incurring much risk of being seen?

Why won't Turkel answer this question? If a person who has escaped from jail reaches the point where he needs food, and he has many friends living on the path of his flight whose homes he can stop at to ask for food without much risk of being seen, would he be likely to pass them by and go into a cathedral where daily activities are taking place? I mentioned the daily activities, because the tabernacle was such a place as this.

Turkel [quoting Till]:
"then David didn't use common sense in going to the tabernacle in Nob to ask for Ahimelech's food. A sacred location like this would have been too visible a risk to take if David knew that he had other ‘allies' in more secluded places from whom he could have obtained food."

To which I can only say, What the bleck is Farrell on about here! He who brays about "it isn't in the text" has now read a whole truckload of assumptions into the text without any explanation or justification:

Till:
What the "bleck" am I talking about here? I'm talking about very reasonable inferences. By necessary inference, Nob was where the tabernacle was located at this time. It was originally set up at Shiloh (Josh. 18:1). Since the tabernacle was the place where the "showbread" was kept (Ex. 25:30; Lev. 24:5ff) and since Ahimelech had showbread available at Nob, we can reasonably "infer" that the tabernacle had been moved to Nob. If Turkel will consult scholars whose "lifeblood" has been biblical studies, I think he will find general agreement on this point.

If Turkel has ever read much in the book of Leviticus, he should know that the tabernacle was the center of Hebrew worship, where daily sacrifices took place. Numbers 4:16 referred to the "daily" meal-offering, and the writer of Hebrew also referred to the daily ritual offerings in the tabernacle.

Hebrew 10:11 And every priest stands ministering daily and offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sin.

The tale of the corrupt priests Hopni and Phinehas, who served at the tabernacles when it was located at Shiloh, tells of sacrifices offered at the tabernacle, which Hopni and Phinehas routinely corrupted by forcing the worshipers to give them part of the meat before it was put on the altar (1 Sam. 2:15-17). Later, the text mentions women "who did service" at the door of the tabernacle with whom Hopni and Phinehas committed adultery (1 Sam. 2:22). A center of worship like this would have been bustling with activity and religious ceremonies, and from the fact that at least 85 priests served here (1 Sam. 22:18), we can reasonably "infer" that it was indeed a place of high visibility. The fact that David would have gone here for assistance rather than to some out-of-the way home of one of his many "allies," shoots to pieces Turkel's "inference" that there would have been people breaking their necks to help David.

I hope readers will realize that they have just read an "inference" that was derived from what the biblical text says and not from the flagrant speculation on which Turkel has been basing his "inferences."

Turkel:
Namely, that Saul's forces would have considered Nob a likely choice for David to stop at;

Till:
Just where did I assume that? I never even implied that I thought this. All that I argued was that Nob would have been a place of high visibility, and so if David went there for help, he surely must not have known of any less conspicuous places where he could have obtained food. Nowhere did I even suggest that I thought that Saul's forces would have considered this a likely stopping place for David. Had Saul thought that, he would surely have sent men there to watch for him.

Turkel:
that this was the one place nearby David had allies for Saul to choose from

Till:
This statement doesn't even make sense. What did Turkel mean by "allies for Saul to choose from"? If he would slow down and give more thought to what he is writing instead of trying to see how much hackwork he can put out, maybe he would make more sense. I'm reminded of answers I often saw on essay tests in my literature classes. Students who didn't know what to say would most often take a shot at saying something, so I saw a lot of nonsensical statements in my teaching career. I said once before that there is a difference in having something to say and in having to say something. Turkel often writes knowing that he has to say something without quite knowing what to say. This seems to be one of those occasions.

Turkel:
(Saul only found out about the Nob stop via a "lucky" view from Doeg the Edomite) --

Till:
Yes, this was how Saul learned that David had been in Nob, but in view of the activity that would have gone on at a place like this, whether it was a "lucky view" or not is debatable. This is exactly why I have argued that we can reasonably infer that David felt that he had no other choice but to go there He had spent a day and night hiding in a field waiting for Jonathan to tell him of Saul's intentions (1 Sam. 20:17ff), and so it was understandable why he would have been experiencing hunger. (That David was hungry Turkel cannot dispute, because Jesus said that he was hungry [Mark 2:26], and whatever Jesus said had to be true.) Going to Ahimelech for food instead of a home of one of his many "allies" gives sufficient reason to infer that David didn't have allies, at least not in that region, who would have given him a better alternative than going into a public place like the tabernacle at Nob.

Turkel:
actually Bethlehem, his hometown in the opposite direction, would have been the most likely place for him to go in danger

Till:
And this proves what, since David went to Nob instead of Bethlehem? Again, I think we are seeing an example of Turkel's knowing that he has to say something but not quite knowing what to say.

Turkel:
(and for good measure, note that Gibeah, Saul's old hometown, was further on in the same direction as Nob; this place was chock full of people who would favor Saul, making even more unlikely, in the view of his enemies, that Dave would head in that direction)!

Till:
And Turkel's point is what? He seems not to understand that David was fleeing from Gibeah toward Nob. Gibeah was where Saul still lived (1 Sam. 15:34; 22:6; 23:19); it wasn't just his "old hometown." So if David fled from Saul, who was living in Gibeah at the time, he would have been going away from Gibeah, so Nob would have been in the opposite rather than "the same direction." In reading what Turkel said here, I get the idea that he thinks that David fled from Jerusalem toward Nob and Gibeah, but Jerusalem was at this time a Jebusite city and remained so until David captured it after he had become king (2 Sam. 5:6ff). I do hope that Turkel's admirers are taking note of what Turkel said here, because it may give them an example of just how shallow his biblical knowledge is.

At any rate, Turkel has unintentionally put his finger on a reason why it is reasonable to "infer" that David probably didn't have "allies" who would have knocked themselves out to help him. Nob was located near Gibeah, so if Turkel thinks that "this place" [Gibeah] would have been "chock full of people who would favor Saul," then he should reasonably "infer" that nearby Nob would also have had many people who favored Saul. Thus, Turkel has shot himself in the foot by showing how unlikely it was that there would have been "allies" everywhere in this region who would have been eager to help David.

Turkel:
Till doesn't even tell us why a "sacred location" would have been any more a dumb choice than any other (whether also a "sacred" location or just a non-sacred [sic] one, that may have been of far more use, like the house of a farmer or someone who made weapons).

Till:
Well, I just explained above why Nob, a "sacred location," would have been an unlikely choice to ask for help unless David had been driven by intense hunger. If Turkel's attention span isn't long enough to have retained the information, he can scroll back up and read it. It was a place where there was a population of 85 priests, who officiated at daily rituals at the tabernacle. Hence, it would have been far more likely that a fugitive would be spotted here than at a farm house. If Turkel can't see that, maybe he can go to the nearest elementary school in his area and see if he can find a student who can explain it to him.

Turkel:
Since Nob is not ever mentioned before David's trip there, we have to ask on what grounds Till now deigns to call David stupid for going there.

Till:
I haven't said that David was stupid for going there. I have said only that it was a place of high risk, so the fact that David went there for help would be an indication that he realized that he had no other alternatives where less risk would have been involved.

Somebody draw a picture and send it to Turkel.

Turkel:
He doesn't even have a background template (as I do with David's popularity) to judge whether it was a stupid decision.

Till:
My "background template" was presented above when I explained the activities that would have been happening on a daily basis at Nob. I supported my "template" with scriptural quotations that told what was to be done at the tabernacle, and Turkel has quoted what textual evidence to support his "template"? I can't even remember the last time Turkel cited a text to support his wild assumptions, which he has the audacity to call "inferences."

This, by the way, is a good place to remind Turkel that we would like for him to quote the passage from the story of David's flight where the accusers could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him. He can put it after his ID marker below.

Turkel:

Turkel [introducing a quotation from Till]:
The best he can do is this:

The fact that he risked being seen by going to the tabernacle is a strong implication that he felt that he had no other choice. As it was, he was seen at Nob by Doeg the Edomite, who reported the sighting to Saul and brought about the massacre of the priests at Nob.

Hold the phone! Till needs to explain either a) why the tabernacle would have been regarded as a likely place for David to go;

Till
When did I ever even imply that the tabernacle would have been regarded as a likely place for David to go? Turkel seems to have some serious reading comprehension problems. I simply said that David had taken a high risk by going to the tabernacle to ask for help. I don't understand at all why Turkel thinks that I was saying that the tabernacle would have been regarded as a likely place for David to go. Does he think I have been saying that Saul would have thought that the tabernacle was the most likely place that David would go, and so David took a big risk by going there?

If that's what Turkel thinks, then I suggest that he go to Valencia Community College and inquire into remedial reading classes. David hid in a field near Gibeah to wait for Jonathan to tell him what Saul's intentions were (1 Sam. 20:17ff). Upon learning that Saul intended to kill him, David took flight (v:42). There is nothing to indicate that David intentionally fled toward Nob because he thought this was a place where he could get help. He simply took flight, and afterwards he needed food, which he had to find somewhere. The fact that he went to the tabernacle to get food, as I have shown above, is an indication that he knew of no other place to go. If he had had "allies" in the area, he would surely have gone to one of their homes where there would have been much less risk of being seen.

Turkel:
b) how it would have been more likely than other destinations (especially Bethlehem) for Saul to begin searching.

Till:
When have I said anything about the likeliness of where Saul would have searched? As the story is told, Saul didn't even look for David until after he had reached the cave of Adullam, been joined by others, committed his parents to the king of Moab for safe keeping, and then departed again into Judah (1 Sam. 22:1-3). After all these things had happened, Saul from his home in Gibeah probed his servants to get information on David's whereabouts.

1 Samuel 22:6 When Saul heard that David and the men who were with him had been discovered—now Saul was staying in Gibeah under a tamarisk tree in Ramah, with his spear in his hand, and all his servants standing about him—⁷then Saul said to his servants who stood about him, "Hear now, you Benjamites! Will the son of Jesse give every one of you fields and vineyards, and make you all captains of thousands and captains of hundreds? ⁸All of you have conspired against me, and there is no one who reveals to me that my son has made a covenant with the son of Jesse; and there is not one of you who is sorry for me or reveals to me that my son has stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as it is this day." ⁹Then answered Doeg the Edomite, who was set over the servants of Saul, and said, "I saw the son of Jesse going to Nob, to Ahimelech the son of Ahitub. ¹⁰And he inquired of the LORD for him, gave him provisions, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine."

So it wasn't until after David had completed his flight that Saul began to search for him. Since I have said absolutely nothing at all how the likeliness of places where Saul would look for David, Turkel's comments above are a mystery, especially his references to Bethlehem. It would certainly help if Turkel would take the time to read my articles closely enough to understand what I am saying.

Turkel:
Actually from what we can see, Saul had no idea where to start looking;

Till:
That's right, so the point of all of Turkel's references to places where Saul would have expected to find David is what? All I have said is that David fled, and when hunger became a problem to him, he went to Ahimelech for help. I have never said or implied that David intentionally planned to flee by way of Nob. He simply fled, and Nob happened to be on the route he took. My argument has been only that since David took the risk of going to a place where religious activities occurred on a daily basis, that would indicate desperation, which he would not have risked had he known of private homes that he could have gone to in secret.

I wish Turkel would learn how to address pertinent issues and stop setting up straw men, but, of course, if Turkel addressed only pertinent issues, his apologetic incompetence would become readily apparent to his readers, wouldn't it?

Turkel:
only the "lucky" presence of Doeg (from Saul's view, lucky) -- a herdsman who had no more likelihood to be in Nob than David -- turned matters sour for the Nobbies,

Till:
The text implies that Doeg was there not by "luck" or chance but because of the fact that Nob was exactly what I have said it was, i.e., a religious center where people went to offer their sacrifices as prescribed by the Levitical law.

1 Samuel 21:7 Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before Yahweh. And his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chief of the herdsmen who belonged to Saul.

I can't imagine what "detained before Yahweh" meant except that Doeg was there out of some sense of religious obligation, probably to offer sacrifices required by the law. This text supports my view that going to the tabernacle posed a high risk for David, so the fact that David risked being seen would show (1) his desperation and (2) the improbability that he had "allies" whose homes he could have gone to secretly without incurring a high risk of being seen.

Turkel:
and David bears no blame for that whatsoever.

Till:
No, I guess David didn't bear any blame. That was probably why after learning of the massacre of the priests, he said to Abiathar, "I have caused the death of all the persons of your father's house" (1 Sam. 22:22). David was there and said that he had caused the deaths, but Turkel three thousand years later assures us that David didn't bear any blame. Whom should we believe?

Turkel:
Till talks snidely of "how-it-could-have-been" scenarios,

Till:
No, actually, Turkel is the one who talks snidely of how-it-could-have-been scenarios, as if it is somehow unreasonable to point out that a how-it-could-have-been scenario proves absolutely nothing unless the one proposing it can give textual evidence that this is what the passage in question probably meant. Turkel has not done that. He has "inferred" that David had many "allies" to help him, he has "inferred" that David made other stops that just weren't mentioned, he has "inferred" that David had men with him who just were never mentioned, but he has not quoted to us any textual language to support those "inferences."

As any reasonable person can see, I fill my rebuttals with textual analyses to support my arguments, but Turkel just postulates off-the-wall "possibilities" for which he offers no textual support. That is the natural consequences of espousing an indefensible doctrine like biblical inerrancy, because those who espouse it have very little evidence on their side, so they must constantly resort to how-it-could-have-been scenarios.

Turkel:
but feels perfectly free to posit "the-way-it-must-have-been" scenarios when it suits his purposes -- hindsight always sounds good from an armchair tactician!

Till:
Of course, Turkel gave no specific examples of "the-way-it-must-have-been" scenarios that I seem to posit so frequently, so he leaves me with nothing to answer here.

At this point, Turkel tried to explain why he hopped, skipped, and jumped over 90% of the material in my original article when he "replied" to it, so I will reply to that part of his second round in Part Three.