Turkel:
Now for the first time, Till
pitches the tar over something he thinks I omitted that hurt his
case. He says, "The section I quote will dispose of two of
Turkel's denials and show that (1) David was alone in his flight, and
(2) David lied to Ahimelech and said that men were with him hiding in
an appointed place." You'd think I'd omitted a
Bible verse that says, "And David was actually alone, the big
fat liar," but was that it? No.
Till:
No, I didn't
think that at all. I knew exactly why Turkel had omitted so
much of my original article. It contained a detailed analysis
of all of the relevant passages, which showed that it was so unlikely
that men were with David that it shouldn't even be considered a
how-it-could-have-been "inference." Because I knew
that Turkel had not linked his readers to my article in his original
reply, I reinserted those sections so that his readers could see for
themselves that there is absolutely nothing in the text to imply that
the men were there.
Those analyses were so convincing that even Turkel had to admit that the text doesn't "specifically say" that men were with David, so "we" can only infer that they were. It is time to ask Turkel again to show us exactly where in the OT account of David's flight the accusers of Jesus could have read that David gave showbread to men who were with him.
He can quote the text right after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
Yes, I didn't quote
much from the article;
Till:
For once, we agree on something,
because I would certainly agree that quoting fewer than 500 out of
almost 5500 words would not constitute quoting "much from the
article."
Turkel:
I just alluded to the objections
overall. But let me run over some things I didn't allude to, because
they were already covered by what I said otherwise:
Till:
Well, we will see that my major
points were not "already covered by what [Turkel] said
otherwise."
Till [quoted by Turkel]:
David knew that to
make his story of a secret mission believable to Ahimelech, he would
have to pretend that he had men with him to assist in the mission.
That was a lie, of course, because David had not been sent on a
secret mission by king Saul; he was, in fact, fleeing for his life
from Saul. So when Ahimelech asked why no men were with him, David
told another lie and said that they were in hiding.
Turkel:
Well, that's a
spectacular failure. One falsehood proves another? Good thing our
courts don't work that way!
Till:
Apparently, Turkel has
never heard of the rule of evidence that says falsus in uno,
falsus in omnibus. This literally means false in one thing,
false in everything. Of course, if someone says A, B, C, and D,
and it can be shown that A and D are lies, that doesn't mean
that B and C are also lies, but it does mean that the person's
credibility has been severely damaged. If a witness in a trial
is caught in a lie, jurors aren't likely to give much credence
to anything else he says.
That, however, was not my point. A sensible interpretation of 1 Samuel 21:1-5 will show to any reasonable person that David's conversation with Ahimelech was one lie after the other. I could quote scholars, whose "lifeblood" has been biblical research, on this, but that isn't my style. I will, however, reinsert later on my analysis of this section of the story, because Turkel, of course, skipped over it. He routinely skips my main arguments and hopes that his readers will not remember what I said (even if they took the time to click onto his link).
First, I will reply to his "arguments."
Turkel:
(Incidentally, note
that Dave never says King Saul -- we're betting he meant "King
Yahweh" [1 Sam. 12:12, Ps. 5:2, etc] making this not the lie
that Till thinks it is in the first place!)
Till:
I love it when an
inerrantist is driven to this kind of desperation. Let's
look at the text where David said he was on a secret mission for the
king.
1 Samuel 21:2 So David said to Ahimelech the priest, "The king has ordered me on some business, and said to me, ‘Do not let anyone know anything about the business on which I send you, or what I have commanded you.'"
Now if David meant that he was on a secret mission for King Yahweh, what is there in the text that even implies this? Where is there anything in the entire text of this story, beginning back in chapter 18 where the conflict between Saul and David developed, that would even remotely imply that King Yahweh had commanded David to go on a mission for him? If there is any justification at all for this off-the-wall interpretation of David's statement to Ahimelech, Turkel should be able to quote where the biblical text suggests it. I'll ask him to quote it after his ID tag below.
Turkel:
Till:
Now let's look at
Turkel's texts where Yahweh was referred to as "king."
1 Samuel 12:12 And when you saw that Nahash king of the Ammonites came against you, you said to me, ‘No, but a king shall reign over us,' when Yahweh your God was your king.
Psalm 5:2 Give heed to the voice of my cry, My King and my God, For to You I will pray.
Notice that in both of these there is no guesswork involved. The context clearly identifies Yahweh or "God" as the king. What is there in David's statement to Ahimelech that would identify Yahweh as the "king" who had sent David on a secret mission? Turkel seems to have a hard time remembering that the meanings of words must be determined by the contexts in which they are used.
I'm going to be very blunt here, because when an inerrantist resorts to this kind of duplicity, it needs to be called exactly what it is. Turkel is lying if he says that he really believes that David meant in this verse that he was on a secret mission for King Yahweh. He believes no such thing. If he really believes this, he should be able to locate other passages where David referred to Yahweh as "the king." First Samuel 12:12, quoted above, is certainly not an example, because this is a verse from the passage where the prophet Samuel was reprimanding the Israelites for demanding to have a king when "Yahweh [their] God was [their] king."
At any rate, I thank Turkel for taking such a ridiculous position as this to try to harmonize the mistake, because my goal in debating inerrantists is to demonstrate to the audiences how biblicists must constantly resort to absurd scenarios in order to find harmony in the Bible, and I think even Turkel's staunchest admirers will see that he is grasping for straws here.
At any rate, it doesn't really matter, because Turkel has admitted that the OT text doesn't "specifically say" that men were with David, so since he has now admitted this, I would like for him to quote to us the passage from the OT story where the accusers of Jesus could have read that David gave some of the showbread to men who were with him. He can put it after his ID tag below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
So -- if this sort of
"guilt by association" argument works, what about verse
8? "And David said unto Ahimelech, And is there not here under
thine hand spear or sword? for I have neither brought my sword nor my
weapons with me, because the king's business required haste."
David lied like heck (maybe only half like heck and by omission)
about the king's business requiring haste, because there was no
business from the king.
Till:
Uh, I thought Turkel's
position was that David was telling the truth about the secret
mission because he had meant "King Yahweh" rather than
king Saul. I wish Turkel would make up his mind. Of
course, when one has to lie to defend biblical inerrancy, he may have
difficulty remembering what he has said from one paragraph to the
next.
Turkel:
So does that mean he
lied about not bringing swords or weapons? By Till's reasoning, the
proximity makes it so. Score zero for Farrell.
Till:
Well, there are strong
textual reasons to think that David was being truthful when he said
that he had no weapon, because my analysis of 1 Samuel 20, which
Turkel has so far evaded like the plague, showed that David had
hidden in a field for at least a day and a night to wait for word
from Jonathan about Saul's disposition. Upon receiving
word that Saul was out to kill him, David "arose and departed"
(v:42). The very next verse has David stopping in Nob, so in
view of the short distance from Gibeah to Nob, there would hardly
have been an opportunity for David to get a weapon.
At any rate, even David's statement about the weapon wasn't exactly a glaring example of truth, because the excuse that he gave to Ahimelech for not having a weapon was that "the king's business required haste" (v:8).
By the way, that was rather inconsiderate of the omniscient king Yahweh, wasn't it? Why did king Yahweh, knowing all things, wait until David had no time to prepare himself properly before he sent David on this secret mission?
Turkel admirers, please take a good look at the depths that your hero must sink to in order to defend biblical inerrancy.
And score one for Farrell.
Turkel:
Now as to any charge
of me leaving this out: since I consider the whole thing covered by
showing that all of Till's reasons for believing David to be alone
are fallacious,
Till:
If he really thought
that my reasons for believing David was alone were fallacious, why
did Turkel admit that the OT text doesn't "specifically
say" that men were with David? What is "fallacious"
about saying that the OT does not say what Turkel himself admits that
it does not "specifically say"?
This guy can't seem to remember from one paragraph to the next what he has previously said. That is a natural consequence of (1) cranking out hackwork and (2) not having anything to say. Anyway, this is a good time to ask Turkel again to quote below the passage from the OT where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave some of the showbread to those who were with him. He can put it after his ID tag below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
what is the call to
include an argument that David was lying based on another lie?
Till:
No, I made no such
claim as this. One lie in a statement would give reasons to
suspect that other statements made in the same context may also be
lies, but that was not my reasons for claiming that the reference
that David made to men waiting for him at an appointed place was also
a lie. I guess, since Turkel is not going to address my
arguments on this issue, I will have to quote again the full context
of my argument.
The situation as recorded in the passage quoted above is rather obvious. David knew that to make his story of a secret mission believable to Ahimelech, he would have to pretend that he had men with him to assist in the mission. That was a lie, of course, because David had not been sent on a secret mission by king Saul; he was, in fact, fleeing for his life from Saul. So when Ahimelech asked why no men were with him, David told another lie and said that they were in hiding. However, there were no men with David, because when he learned from Jonathan that Saul was planning to kill him, he had made a rapid retreat from the field he had been hiding in for three days. He had had no time to find men who would be willing to flee with him. This, then, was the second lie that David told on this occasion (if we are to believe in the accuracy of the Old Testament account). After lying about being on a secret mission for the king, David, who was alone in his flight, told the priest Ahimelech that he had men with him waiting in an appointed place.
Ahimelech, being a priest, wanted assurances that these men, whom David pretended were in hiding, were pure enough to eat the sacred showbread, and so he asked David if they had been with any women recently. The Levitical law required that a man who had had sexual relations with a woman be considered ritually unclean until he had bathed (Lev. 15:18), and men going into battle (as Ahimelech would have assumed that these "men" with David might do) were also required to be sexually clean (Deut. 23:10ff). Hence, the priest wanted assurances that if he gave something as ceremonially sacred as the showbread to David and his men, they would also be ceremonially clean before they ate it. So David lied again and said that "women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition." These men, however, were nonexistent; David had fabricated them as a part of his false scenario to make it believable to Ahimelech that he was on a secret mission for the king. This, then, was a third lie that David told in order to dupe Ahimelech into helping him in his flight from Saul.
This quotation is from my original article and was part of the 5,000 words that Turkel skipped. In my first reply to Turkel, I reinserted this part and then went on to explain why this reference to men waiting for David at an appointed place was just another part of an elaborate lie designed to get Ahimelech's help.
A second reference that David made to these "men" is sufficient to give the coup de grace to Turkel's attempt to make the second part of David's answer the truth, even though the first part was a lie. When Ahimelech expressed concern about whether the men with David were sexually "clean" at the time, David said, "Indeed women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition; the vessels of the young men are holy even when it is a common journey; how much more today will their vessels be holy?" David, however, had left Jonathan in haste and had journeyed only a short distance to Nob. If men had already been sent to rendezvous with him, they too would have been sent in haste, so how could David have guaranteed that these men were sexually "clean" at the time? The type of sexual purity that David was assuring to Ahimelech could have been present in the men only if they had known far enough in advance to plan for the mission and abstain from sexual activity.
I will remind Turkel that if he wants to argue with my claim that David had left in haste, which we will see that he did below, then he can argue with his hero David, who Turkel thinks was telling the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth to Ahimelech, because David had actually meant that he was on a secret mission for "King Yahweh" and not king Saul, so Turkel should keep in mind that his paragon of truth-telling had also said to Ahimelech when asking for a weapon, "I have brought neither my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king's business required haste" (v:8). So Turkel cannot now claim that David didn't leave in haste without backpedaling on his claim that David was telling the truth all along.
So if David had left in haste, which would have required him also to gather in haste any men who were with him, how could they have prepared themselves for Ahimelech's sexual purity requirement? Are we supposed to believe that while hastily gathering men to go with him, David had said to each of them, "Hey, have you gotten any lately? If so, you won't be able to go"?
But that wasn't the end of my argument, which Turkel conveniently skipped over. Here is the rest of it.
I quoted the NRSV above where David said, "Indeed women have been kept from us as always when I go on an expedition," but the Masoretic text literally says, "A woman has been kept from us yesterday and the third day since I came out." Turkel is an expert in Hebrew and Hebrew thought, so he should be able to check this himself. This literal reading has been reflected in some translations.
KJV: And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy....
NKJV Then David answered the priest, and said to him, "Truly, women have been kept from us about three days since I came out. And the vessels of the young men are holy...."
ASV And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days; when I came out, the vessels of the young men were holy....
Amplified Bible And David told the priest, Truly women have been kept from us in these three days since I came out, and the food bags and utensils of the young men are clean....
I'll anticipate a possible rebuttal point from Turkel. The word shilshom [triple, three days, day before yesterday] was at times used in the sense of "heretofore," as in Exodus 5:14.
5:14 And the officers of the children of Israel, which Pharaoh's taskmasters had set over them, were beaten, and demanded, Wherefore have ye not fulfilled your task in making brick both yesterday and to day, as heretofore [shilshom]?
So we have again the problem of linguistic homographs [words spelled and pronounced alike with different meanings], but there is a good reason to think that this word as used by David in 1 Samuel 21:5 was intended to convey the sense of three days, because a three-day abstinence from sexual activity was sometimes indicated in the Old Testament in order for men to be "clean." If you can believe it, the following conversation between Moses and Yahweh occurred on Mount Sinai prior to the giving of the ten commandments.
Exodus
19:9 Then Yahweh said to Moses, "I am going to come
to you in a dense cloud, in order that the people may hear when I
speak with you and so trust you ever after." When Moses had
told the words of the people to Yahweh,
10 Yahweh said to
Moses: "Go to the people and consecrate them today and
tomorrow. Have them wash their clothes
11 and prepare
for the third day, because on the third day Yahweh will come down
upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people.
12 You
shall set limits for the people all around, saying, ‘Be careful
not to go up the mountain or to touch the edge of it. Any who touch
the mountain shall be put to death.
13 No hand shall touch
them, but they shall be stoned or shot with arrows; whether animal or
human being, they shall not live.' When the trumpet sounds a
long blast, they may go up on the mountain."
14 So
Moses went down from the mountain to the people. He consecrated the
people, and they washed their clothes.
15 And he said to the
people, "Prepare for the third day; do not go near a woman."
David, of course, had not been on the run three days at this time, unless he had crawled from Gibeah to Nob. Gibeah was about three and a half miles north of Jerusalem, and Nob was within "fist-shaking" distance of the hill of Jerusalem. If his assurance to Ahimlech was intended to mean that he and his "men" had been sexually "clean" for three days, Ahimelech wouldn't necessarily have understood this to mean that they had been traveling for three days but that in anticipation of the mission, they had abstained from sexual activity in order to prepare themselves for the trip. Regardless of what time period was meant, whether three days or a shorter period of time, the fact that David was telling Ahimelech that his men were sexually "clean" is proof that this was just a part of an elaborate lie, because David's departure had been sudden, and these "men" (if they were real) could not have had time to purify themselves sexually. David fabricated these men waiting for him in an "appointed place." That is the only reasonable interpretation of the statement.
Here, friends, is a rebuttal argument delineated in detail, and Turkel hasn't even touched it. In typical fashion, he skipped over that which he cannot reply to. I trust everyone is noticing that, in sharp contrast, I am taking his articles and replying to them point by point. I skip nothing. This is just the difference in someone who has facts on his side and someone who tries to hide the facts against him by distortion and subterfuge.
I wonder how many of those who have pledged $70 to $80 per year to Turkel so that he can become a full-time "apologist" wish that they could get their money back.
Turkel:
If I show that there
was no reason to think that there were no men with David, the "guilt
by proximity" argument is blown, too.
Till:
To do this, Turkel will
have to answer my rebuttal arguments requoted above, because I have
certainly not depended on a "guilt by proximity"
argument. I have shown, in detail, why each part of David's
answers to Ahimelech's questions was obviously part of an
elaborate lie.
Turkel:
Of course we know the
real reason why Till thinks we missed something: Because we missed
giving him a chance to stack the deck by impugning David's
character, a pep-rally any good skeptic would cheer about.
Till:
Yeah, right! I'll
leave it to readers to decide if Turkel evaded my rebuttal arguments
because he didn't want to repeat a "pep-rally that any
good skeptic would cheer about" or if he skipped the rebuttals
requoted above because he realized that he was in deep you-know-what
and knew that he would look bad if he tried to answer it. After
all, his "king-Yahweh" explanation of David's
secret mission has already made him look bad enough. He can't
afford to post any more absurd explanations.
Turkel:
And then Till has
this idea, which I consider covered by the whole "argument from
silence" response:
Till [quoted by Turkel]:
However, there
were no men with David, because when he learned from Jonathan that
Saul was planning to kill him, he had made a rapid retreat from the
field he had been hiding in for three days. He had had no time to
find men who would be willing to flee with him.
Turkel:
Once again we ask,
"What the bleck is Farrell on about here?" Nothing in the
text says that David had no time to find men (what's all this
about not putting stuff in the text that isn't there?). Nothing
speaks of David making a "rapid" retreat. It says he
"arose and departed" -- that's it.
Till:
I just can't
resist pointing this out. Turkel is the one who is trying to
make David a paragon of truth in the story of his encounter with
Ahimelech, so if Turkel really believes that David was being
truthful, he will have to say that David did make a hasty departure,
because David said that he did. Look at what Turkel's
paragon of truth said to Ahimelech.
1 Samuel 21:8 And David said to Ahimelech, "Is there not here on hand a spear or a sword? For I have brought neither my sword nor my weapons with me, because the king's business required haste."
So the "word of God" rightly divided (2 Tim. 2:15) requires Turkel to say that David did make a hasty departure. If that departure was so hasty that David couldn't even grab a weapon, how likely is it that he could have rounded up the "contingent" of "five or ten" men that Turkel has "inferred" from the text? I'll add to this that Turkel must "infer" that even though David had made a hasty departure, he managed to round up not just five or ten men but five or ten men who happened to be sexually pure at the time.
I think any reasonable person can see Turkel's inconsistency. He objects to my "inferential reasoning" that found a hasty departure in the text (an inference based partly on David's own statement), but he seems to think it is perfectly reasonable for him to infer the presence of men with David when, by his own admission, the text doesn't "specifically say" that men were with David.
It is time once more to ask Turkel to tell us where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read in the OT text that David gave showbread to those who were with him. He can put his answer after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
Anything wrong with
him picking up a few allies on the way, or getting it set up so he'll
have some?
Till:
If the text implies
this so that Turkel finds reason to "infer" that this was
what happened, let him quote language from the text that so implies
it. Better yet, why doesn't he just quote where the
accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David
gave some of the showbread to those who were with him? He can
put it after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
We can hear it now:
"Turkel can--and probably will--argue that the failure to
mention a stop for allies, or making an arrangement for them, between
the field and Nob doesn't mean that such stops weren't made. That
would be true..." Thank you, Farrell, we'll take that as a
concession!
Till:
Well, I guess there is
nothing for me to do but quote the reply that I have already given to
Turkel's quibble about unmentioned stops.
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.
The same problems identified above in reference to Turkel's claim of unmentioned stops at the homes of "allies" who gave David food would also apply to his conjecture that David made unmentioned stops to muster troops. Common sense should tell Turkel that if he had stopped to muster troops, he would have also obtained food at these stops and would not have had to risk being seen by going to the tabernacle at Nob.
Turkel refused to cooperate with me in negotiating a debating agreement that would have given structure to our debates, but a standard rule in formal debate is that the participants will answer the other's arguments and rebuttals. Obviously, Turkel has not been doing that, so I'm going to ask him to take my rebuttal arguments quoted above and answer them. That is a reasonable request.
While he is at it, he can quote for us the language of the OT text where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him. If Turkel would just do that, it would settle the matter, and he wouldn't have to make strained claims of men with David whom he found by "inferential reasoning." He can put the quotation after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
Now why should I
include this when I have already pointed out the same "argument
from silence" being used with respect to being at Gath,
Till:
Talk about arguments
from silence, what about all of Turkel's unsupported
"inferences" about "allies" who gave food to
David along the way and unmentioned stops that he made to gather men
to go with him--and men, who, incidentally, just happened to be
sexually pure at the time?
I'll have to say one thing about Turkel: he is long on asserting and short on proving, but he certainly isn't short on audacity.
Turkel:
and also already
pointed out that it is absurd with respect to a journey to
hypothesize no stopping points at all?
Till:
Hypothesizing "stops"
is one thing, but hypothesizing unmentioned stops to get food and
weapons from "allies" and gathering men to go with him is
another. Such hypothesizing requires the "inference"
that (1) stops for food were made, but the food was never mentioned,
(2) stops for weapons were made, but the weapons were never
mentioned, and (3) stops to muster men were made, but the men were
never mentioned. All of these stops were made, but the benefits
that David would have obtained from the stops weren't
mentioned. Where does hypothesizing end and pure conjecture
begin?
It's easy to settle this matter. All Turkel has to do is quote the language from the OT text where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him. The quotation of such a text would end the discussion, and Turkel wouldn't have to ramble on and on and on and on about men whom he found by "inferential reasoning." He can quote the text in the space after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
Conceptually, I have
this argument covered already -- I don't need to repeat what amounts
to the same argument in different underwear. Till has this idea that
his every word is precious nectar and every argument of his is
unique, and deserves a separate answer, but we don't think so -- and
he can't give us any reason to think they all deserve a separate
answer when they argue the same thing.
Till:
Well, I will just ask Turkel to tell
us when he has answered the following argument, which he has now
skipped three times. I had completed a detailed analysis of 1
Samuel 20 and 21 to show that no men were mentioned in the narratives
of David's flight, but after he reached the cave of Adullam,
the narrative suddenly changed.
After chapter 21 closed with Achish and his servants discussing "the man" and "this fellow," the next chapter finally mentioned men who joined David, but this was well after he had stopped in Nob to ask Ahimelech for help.
22:1-2 David left there [Gath] and escaped to the cave of Adullam; when his brothers and all his father's house heard of it, they went down there to him. Everyone who was in distress, and everyone who was in debt, and everyone who was discontented gathered to him; and he became captain over them. Those who were with him numbered about four hundred.
So apparently concerned about his security, David left Gath, at which time he was joined by others, and after this point in his flight from Saul, the Bible writer made frequent references to "men" who were with David. David survived in Philistia as a guerrilla marauder, and as the writer told of these exploits, he made frequent references to "David's men," "David and his men," or "the men of David" (23:3, 4, 5, 13; 24:3, 4, 7, etc., etc., etc.). Isn't it strange that David had had men with him for two chapters, who were never mentioned in the narrative, but as soon as 400 men joined him in 22:1-2, the writer suddenly couldn't get enough of referring to the men who were with David?
Let's notice too that the second verse in this chapter (quoted above) says that David was joined at the cave of Adullam by (1) everyone that was in distress, (2) everyone who was in debt, and (3) everyone who was discontented. Still with all of the everyones in these three categories, David's troop at this time numbered only "about four hundred." So if David had had men with him before he arrived at the cave of Adullam, they certainly couldn't have been anywhere close to the contingent of troops that David implied in 21:5 when he was seeking Ahimelech's help. This is just another indication that David was clearly lying to Ahimelech when he said that he had men with him. It also explains why David asked for only five loaves of bread. Not having any men at all with him, he had had no need for a larger quantity of bread, which would have encumbered him in his flight and undoubtedly molded before he could eat it.
When the biblical account of David's flight from Saul is analyzed section by section, there is no other conclusion to reach except that the writer of this story thought that David was alone until he was joined by other men at the cave of Adullam, which was well after the time that he went to the priest Ahimelech to ask for food and weapons. That conclusion requires also the conclusion that the writer of Mark erred in having Jesus say that David ate the showbread and also gave some of it to the men with him, because there were no men with David. Whoever wrote this tale [in Mark 2:25ff] had superficially read 1 Samuel 21 and incorrectly interpreted David's lie to mean that he had men waiting for him at an appointed place.
Despite all the textual evidence that supports this conclusion, dyed-in-the-wool inerrantists will still insist that there is no inconsistency in this matter. "If Jesus said that David had men with him," they will say, "that's good enough for me, so he had men with him whether the story in the Old Testament mentioned them or not." This, however, is a flagrant resort to [special pleading and] begging the question at issue, because those who so argue are trying to prove biblical inerrancy by assuming biblical inerrancy. By so reasoning, a believer in just any holy book (Book of Mormon, Qur'an, Avesta, etc.) could prove that it is inerrant.
Now if Turkel indeed has this argument covered, perhaps he would show us just where in his replies he has covered it. By the way, notice something that I said in the last paragraph quoted above: Dyed-in-the-wool inerrantists will insist that if Jesus said that men were with David, then men had to have been with David whether they were mentioned in the Old Testament account or not. Remember when Turkel made that very claim fairly early in his second-round reply?
Giving positive evidence for the presence of the men amounts to citing Jesus....
In other words, Turkel belongs to that school of apologetics that says, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it," and he has the audacity to make constant, snide remarks about my "fundamentalism" and the "Bam Bam Bible College" that I attended!
When I have an opponent on the ropes, I keep him there, so before I leave the argument that I developed in the section quoted above, I'm going to quote the texts that began mentioning men with David after he was joined at the cave of Adullam by a group of 400 men. Before, I had just cited these verses, but looking at what they actually say will make this point more emphatic.
1 Samuel 23:3 But David's men said to him, "Look, we are afraid here in Judah. How much more then if we go to Keilah against the armies of the Philistines?" 4Then David inquired of Yahweh once again. And Yahweh answered him and said, "Arise, go down to Keilah. For I will deliver the Philistines into your hand." 5And David and his men went to Keilah and fought with the Philistines, struck them with a mighty blow, and took away their livestock. So David saved the inhabitants of Keilah.
1 Samuel 23:13 So David and his men, about six hundred, arose and departed from Keilah and went wherever they could go. Then it was told Saul that David had escaped from Keilah; so he halted the expedition.
1 Samuel 24:3 Then the men of David said to him, "This is the day of which Yahweh said to you, ‘Behold, I will deliver your enemy into your hand, that you may do to him as it seems good to you.'" And David arose and secretly cut off a corner of Saul's robe. 5Now it happened afterward that David's heart troubled him because he had cut Saul's robe. 6And he said to his men, "Yahweh forbid that I should do this thing to my master, Yahweh's anointed, to stretch out my hand against him, seeing he is the anointed of Yahweh." 7So David restrained his servants with these words, and did not allow them to rise against Saul. And Saul got up from the cave and went on his way.
Well, heck when you're on a roll, why not stick to it? I'll just continue and quote some of the etceteras that I referred to in the quotation above.
1 Samuel 24:22 So David swore to Saul. And Saul went home, but David and his men went up to the stronghold.
1 Samuel 25:4 When David heard in the wilderness that Nabal was shearing his sheep, 5David sent ten young men; and David said to the young men, "Go up to Carmel, go to Nabal, and greet him in my name. 6And thus you shall say to him who lives in prosperity: ‘Peace be to you, peace to your house, and peace to all that you have! 7Now I have heard that you have shearers. Your shepherds were with us, and we did not hurt them, nor was there anything missing from them all the while they were in Carmel. 8Ask your young men, and they will tell you. Therefore let my young men find favor in your eyes, for we come on a feast day. Please give whatever comes to your hand to your servants and to your son David.'"
Rather than continue this further to show only what I have demonstrated above, i.e., as soon as David was joined by men, the writer continually referred to these men with David, I'll go instead to the narrative part that preceded David's flight from Saul and show that it was also the writer‘s style then to mention "specifically" men who were with David .
1 Samuel 18:25 Then Saul said, "Thus you shall say to David: ‘The king does not desire any dowry but one hundred foreskins of the Philistines, to take vengeance on the king's enemies.'" But Saul thought to make David fall by the hand of the Philistines. 26So when his servants told David these words, it pleased David well to become the king's son-in-law. Now the days had not expired; 27therefore David arose and went, he and his men, and killed two hundred men of the Philistines. And David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full count to the king, that he might become the king's son-in-law. Then Saul gave him Michal his daughter as a wife.
So prior to David's flight from Saul, the writer of 1 Samuel specifically mention when David had men with him when events in the life of David were being narrated, and after the writer stated that men joined David at the cave of Adullam, the writer would again specifically mention that men were with David. However, in the narrative part between these two points, the writer said nothing about men who were with David, but Turkel expects us to believe that through "inferential reasoning," he can determine that men were with David even though the writer didn't "specifically say" that men were with David.
Perhaps Turkel will quote for us the passages where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him. He can quote it in the space after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Till:
If Turkel should decide
to go for a third round in these exchanges on the men with David,
readers should watch to see if he tries to answer these
rebuttals.
I predict that he won't. He will hop, skip, and jump over
them and claim that "conceptually" he has these arguments
"covered."
Turkel:
There's a long
section about how David could not have had men with him in the field.
Till:
Yes, and it was a long
section that Turkel skipped, as he admits immediately below. He
skips and I reply point by point. That has been the way our
debates have been going.
Turkel:
Since we don't think
that necessary to suppose ourselves, we skipped it -- why address an
argument we have no bones with?
Till:
Well, okay, but at
least Turkel can quote to us where the accusers of Jesus's
disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those
who were with him. He can put it after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
Then there's a
section about alleged problems with men being sent from Jonathan.
Till misses the significant point that I never actually endorsed this
idea myself -- and so I don't need, again, to quote anything I have
no bones with.
Till:
Okay, that's no
problem. If he doesn't endorse this standard inerrantist
quibble, he shouldn't be expected to defend it.
Turkel:
I DID have bones with
the general idea Till put out that such men would have food and
weapons already, and that is what I responded to. Apparently Till
thinks I was thereby endorsing the "men came from Jon"
routine, but I said no such thing. I actually think they didn't. I
was correcting one of Till's usual anachronistic suppositions
(he wonders where he argued that food and weapons were just "lying
around" -- apparently the funda-literalist in Till doesn't get
the point, which is that they were not simply easily available for
the taking, which is the whole point) about 7-11's being on every
corner -- nothing else. As usual, when Till can't rebut the argument
I actually make, he'll make one up for me that he can rebut.
Till:
At times, it is hard to
follow what the "bleck" Turkel is even talking about,
because he doesn't show his readers what he is replying to, and
he does a poor job of summarizing. He is referring to this statement
that he made in his first-round reply.
It is supposed that if men were sent from Jonathan, they already would have had food and weapons with them and there would be no need to ask for any. One wonders whether Farrell thinks that ancient people left food and weapons just lying around. Food was precious and carefully measured and guarded. Weapons were at a premium as well. There is no basis for thinking any contingent would have food and weapons with them already, or else only carried enough to get them to David quickly -- Saul surely wasn't opening the coffers for any large group with recognizable or possible allies of David.
He said this in response to a statement in my original article in which I had anticipated an inerrantist claim that men didn't leave with David but were mustered by Jonathan to go after David and rendezvous with him. My article rebutted this familiar inerrantist quibble by claiming that if Jonathan had indeed mustered a force to go join David, they would surely not have left without food and weapons. If Turkel didn't "endorse" this inerrantist quibble, then why did he bother to make the statement quoted above? It certainly seemed like an attempt to rebut my objection to the quibble. Turkel skipped over 90% of my article, but he took the time to make the statement above. Why would he have done that if he didn't "endorse" the quibble in the first place?
This is just one of the many mysteries that develop when anyone tries to make any sense out of Turkel's hastily written hackwork, but if he said that he doesn't "endorse" the quibble, I see no need to pursue the matter further.
I will remind him, however, that readers would like to see him quote from the OT text where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to men who were with him.
Turkel:
Now we move to the
place where it says David fled to Gath. I made the point that the
language of representation in Hebrew thought didn't make this mean
David was alone --
Till:
I'll remind
readers again that if men were with David at this time, Turkel can
easily end this debate by just quoting from the OT text where the
accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David
gave showbread to men who were with him.
Another thing Turkel can do to give credence to his "Hebrew thought" claim is to give a reasonable explanation for why a writer, who specifically said that men were with David in his narratives before David's flight from Saul and who specifically referred to men with David after men joined David at the cave of Adullam, for some reason left completely unmentioned men who joined David during his flight from Saul.
Turkel:
using my favorite
example of Pilate personally scourging Jesus (John 19:1) as another
example. After a snide remark about my "theme song" of
"Hebrew thought" (Flapdoodlese for, "I have no
perception of anyone thinking any differently than I do"), Till
declares my analogy "false" even as he agrees that John
does not mean Pilate did the scourging, for he says that John 19:1
expresses "agency" while the text with David does not. It
doesn't?
Till:
No, it doesn't.
There is a huge difference in a text that says that a high government
official scourged Jesus and one that simply relates the flight of a
man. I have replied to this elsewhere and pointed out that the
biblical text makes frequent allusions to acts that were done through
agency.
Judges 1:23 So the house of Joseph sent men to spy out Bethel. (The name of the city was formerly Luz.) 24And when the spies saw a man coming out of the city, they said to him, "Please show us the entrance to the city, and we will show you mercy." 25So he showed them the entrance to the city, and they struck the city with the edge of the sword; but they let the man and all his family go. 26And the man went to the land of the Hittites, built a city, and called its name Luz, which is its name to this day.
One would have to stretch imagination to the limits to think that one man built an entire city in the sense that he himself laid every stone and cut every beam.
1 Samuel 19:8 And there was war again; and David went out and fought with the Philistines, and struck them with a mighty blow, and they fled from him.
Again, one would have to stretch imagination to the limits to think that this meant that David single-handedly defeated the Philistines. Only Samson was capable of such feats as this.
The nature of the acts attributed to a man or a king are sufficient to determine when agency was implied in the text, but there is absolutely nothing in the narrative of David's flight to give anyone reason to think that when the writer said that David "arose and departed," he meant that David arose and departed in the sense of agency and that he actually had a contingent of men with him or that when the writer said that "David arose and fled that day for fear of Saul and went to Achish the king of Gath," he meant that this had happened in the sense of agency and that a contingent of men who were with David also arose and fled.
This is just another example of the extremes that a biblicist will go to in order to find "harmony" in the Bible. If Turkel will just quote for us the part of the text where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave some of the showbread to men who were with him, he could end this matter very quickly. He can put it after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
David was the leader
of any group that would have been with him; he is the "agent"
for the group who gives the direction and would represent them (as
before a king -- see below!).
Till:
But the issue at this
point is whether anyone else was with David. By Turkel's
own admission, the OT account doesn't "specifically say"
that men were with him, so to find men, Turkel must use what he calls
"referential reasoning" but which in reality is merely
crass speculation. Jesus said that the accusers of his
disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those
who were with him. If they could have read this, then
there would be no need for "referential reasoning," so
just where in the OT text could they have "read" that
David gave showbread to those with him?
As for Turkel's attempt to make David an "agent" of men who were with him so that when the writer said that David "arose and departed," he meant that David and men who were with him arose and departed, this takes us back to a primary principle of hermeneutics and literary interpretation that I discussed above. This principle says that the language of a text should be interpreted literally unless there are compelling reasons to assign figurative meanings. I will show below, in discussing Turkel's next ridiculous statement, that there are no compelling reasons to assign a figurative sense of "agency" to the statement that David "arose and departed."
Turkel:
Apparently Till thinks agency
language would mean David had to pick up or swallow any man with him
for agency language to be used.
Till:
I guess I will have to take the time
to give Turkel a quick lesson in literary interpretation, but I have
found that this is pretty standard procedure when debating him.
He has to have rather simple matters explained to him. Let's
look at some biblical texts that use the same word.
Judges 6:19 So Gideon went in and prepared a young goat, and unleavened bread from an ephah of flour. The meat he put in a basket, and he put the broth in a pot; and he brought them out to Him under the terebinth tree and presented them. 20The Angel of God said to him, "Take the meat and the unleavened bread and lay them on this rock, and pour out the broth." And he did so. 21Then the Angel of Yahweh put out the end of the staff that was in His hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened bread; and fire rose out of the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread.
1Samuel 2:2 No one is holy like Yahweh, For there is none besides You, Nor is there any rock like our God.
2 Samuel 22:32 For who is God, except Yahweh? And who is a rock, except our God?
Exodus 33:21 And Yahweh said, "Here is a place by Me, and you shall stand on the rock. 22So it shall be, while My glory passes by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock, and will cover you with My hand while I pass by. 23Then I will take away My hand, and you shall see My back; but My face shall not be seen."
Anyone reading these texts can see that there is no reason at all to think that rock in the first and last passages was used in any sense except the literal meaning of the word rock. However, if rock in the two middle passages is interpreted literally this would have the writer saying that he thought that Yahweh was a material object made of granite or flint or limestone, etc. That meaning is so unlikely that it becomes a compelling reason to assign a figurative meaning to rock in these verses.
Now let's apply the same common sense to the passages previously quoted that referred to a man who built the city of Luz and to David, who defeated the Philistines. It is so unlikely that one man laid every stone and cut every beam in the construction of the city of Luz or that David single-handedly defeated the Philistine army that we have compelling reasons to assign the figurative meaning of "agency" in these passages.
So now what is the compelling reason to assign a figurative meaning of agency to expressions like "David arose and departed" or "David arose and fled" in the narrative of his flight from Saul? One simply cannot arbitrarily, for no sound linguistic reasons, assign meanings to the words of a text to make it mean what he wants it to say. Turkel has yet to understand this.
Turkel:
Not that it matters
in the first place. If Dave had men with him at all, it's
fairly a given that they weren't fleeing to Paducah when he
went to Gath.
Till:
Here is an example of the type of
nonsensical attempt at humor that Turkel persistently resorts to when
he is in a situation where he has no real evidence to support his
position.
Turkel:
It doesn't need to
say, "David left, and on the way he picked the guys up who were
waiting, who went the same way."
Till:
I disagree. The
text very definitely needs to say something like this if Jesus made a
true statement when he asked the accusers of his disciples if they
had never read that David gave showbread to those who were
with him. If the text says nothing like this, the accusers of
Jesus's disciples could not have read what he said they could
have read, so just where does the text say that? How could the
accusers of the disciples have read this if the text didn't
"specifically say" that men were with Jesus?
Turkel:
Either way it's Till the Low Context Reader
imposing his suppositions on a High Context text.
Till:
I guess I will also
have to take the time to comment on Turkel's
low-context/high-context diversion, which is obviously a cultural
theory that he knows little about. In the first place, this is
a relatively new theory, which was just beginning to find its way
into textbooks before I retired. The theory applies primarily
to oral communication rather than written communication, so
"high-context" cultures depend on body language,
gestures, voice inflection, and other nonverbal types of
communication than do "low-context" cultures. If
Turkel would just think a moment about the terms low context and
high context, he would know that they refer primarily to oral
communication, because if the terms referred only to written
language, a technological society like ours would be more accurately
described with "high context." Turkel seems to
think that ancient or primitive culture = high context and modern
culture = low context, but that isn't at all what the theory
supposes. France, for example, is considered to be a high
context society, whereas the United States is thought to be primarily
low context. Language itself, however, is neither low nor high
context; it is the way it is used that makes the determination.
Some so-called primitive languages, for example, have grammatical
complexities that would baffle people who are accustomed to speaking
a language like English, which has a comparatively simple grammar
that has "leveled" many grammatical features like the
inflected forms in Greek and Latin that make them comparatively
complex.
Thomas Field of the Center for the Humanities at the University of Maryland, in answering a letter directed to "Ask a Linguist," explained what is wrong with Turkel's attempt to pigeon hole Hebrew as a "high context" language and English as "low context."
It's really not very useful to refer to languages as "high-context" or "low-context," and even the classification of cultures in this way is probably a bit misleading. What you are referring to is the distinction discussed most prominently in the works of Edward T. Hall (Beyond Culture, The Hidden Dimension, The Silent Language, etc.). He contrasts cultures like that of the U.S., in which people seem to encode much of their meaning in the words themselves, with cultures like that of Japan, where much more meaning is implicit and has to be inferred. In a "high-context" culture, presumably, the listener has to do more work digging out presuppositions, accessing shared elements of context, interpreting indirect speech acts, etc.
The contrasts that Hall uses to illustrate his point are valid, but, of course, all of this is really a question of degree. At home with one's family, a lot of communication among Americans is very high-context and would be incomprehensible to someone from the outside. Similarly, a Japanese speaker among strangers whose backgrounds he does not know would certainly use somewhat more "low-context" discourse style.
In any case, the language itself cannot be said to be either "high-context" or "low-context."
Fields' references to "listeners," "interpreting indirect speech acts," and family communications among members show that the theory of low-context/high-context culture applies more to oral communication than to written. Now if Turkel has some explication of the chapters in 1 Samuel, which narrated David's flight from Saul, that will show that the narrative was "chock full" of high-context implications, he should present it and spare us his bald assertions about linguistic theories that he knows very little about. By using his same logic, I could argue that because the narrative of David's flight did not say that David didn't take flight on a camel, we can by "inferential reasoning" conclude that he had the camel with him, or that because David didn't encounter a lion and kill it with his bare hands, we can by "inferential reasoning" conclude that he did kill a lion, or because the narrative did not say that David didn't take his harp with him, we can by "inferential reasoning" conclude that he took the harp with him. There would be no end to the "inferences" one could derive from a written text if it were a valid principle of literary interpretation that the reader could "infer" the inclusion of anything that the text did not say wasn't present in the details of a narrative.
Turkel has yet to learn that the meaning of a written text must be determined from what the language of the text says and not from what it does not say.
Turkel:
Then we are told: "To
have a case, Turkel needs to find some textual indication of men who
were with David, but he can't find it." All right --
aside from the passages that Till passes off as fibs, I can indeed
find one. Here it is:
1 Samuel 22:1 David therefore departed thence, and escaped to the cave Adullam: and when his brethren and all his father's house heard it, they went down thither to him.
Till:
I wonder if Turkel is
going to argue that this is also the text where the accusers of
Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave
showbread to those who were with him?
Turkel:
Now then. If Dave is
the knave in the cave, how did his brethren and all his father's
house hear of it and how did they know the exact location? Did David
call on his cell phone? Did he use Chipmunk Express? Passenger
pigeon? Smoke signals? Did they smell David from 15 miles off or so?
Till knows this passage and even quotes it, making much fuss over
that after this we hear a lot about David's 400 men, but it never
quite hits him in the proboscis hard enough to say, "Wow, I
wonder how David let it out that he was in the cave." Maybe he
put a classified ad in the Jerusalem Journal: "Man in cave
seeks family. Recently fled from king. Contact at 345 Big Hole Cave,
Adullam." The obvious answer: Dave's men did the job of
letting Dad and Brothers know where to find him.
Till:
Wow, Turkel himself
must have been reared in a low-context culture to see this as the
"obvious answer." As already noted, David was seen
and recognized in Gath (1 Sam. 21:10-15), and his presence there
created quite a stir in the city, but he left there and went to
Adullam, which was only about 8 miles from Gath. Although
David had no men with him (in the sense that Jesus thought), he had
contacts with people during his flight, as the tale of his stay in
Gath shows, so sending word back to his family to tell them that he
was in Adullam would have been a rather simple matter.
David went from Gath to Adullam, and then he went from Adullam to
Mispah of Moab (1 Sam. 22:3), so does Turkel think that David was the
only one moving around from place to place? How difficult would
it have been for David to ask someone who was traveling from the
region of Gath or Adullam back into Judah to get word to his family
that he was in Adullam? After all, David had many "allies,"
didn't he? So why would he have had any problem getting a
message back to his family?
Furthermore, David wouldn't have had to send a message or messenger back to his family, because, as noted above, the city of Gath was buzzing with word of his presence there: "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'" (1 Sam. 21:11)? With that kind of interest in the man, word of David's presence in the area of Gath could easily have gotten back to his family without David himself doing anything to send a message back. Turkel can see just about every kind of "inference" imaginable in a text except those that work against his precious inerrancy doctrine.
I'll probably ruffle Turkel's feathers even more if I suggest that probably none of this even happened. Surely, Turkel is aware of the serious doubt that archaeological work has cast on the historicity of David, who was probably no more a real person than was king Arthur, so we are dealing with fictionalized history to begin with. That being the case, we can certainly assume no more than what the language of the text will allow, and the text makes no allowance for men with David. Even Turkel has admitted that.
He should settle this matter by just quoting to us the passage where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him.
Turkel:
Now before we
proceed, it's a good time to clarify and develop our thought on
this further. I suggested five or ten men offhand as an accompanying
force. I would consider that a maximum.
Till:
This was not a
suggestion; it was a crass assertion for which Turkel has yet to give
the slightest textual evidence. Why doesn't he just end
this matter by quoting the passage where the accusers of Jesus's
disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those
who were with him?
Turkel:
More likely any group
would be two or three extra men, as few as possible needed to escape
notice while also provided [sic] Dave some security and extra
pairs of eyes.
Till:
Turkel can't seem
to make up his mind, can he? First, he posited by "referential
reasoning" a contingent of five or ten men, and now he has
reduced it--by "referential reasoning," of course--to
just two or three men. Anyway, the textual evidence for even
these two or three men is what?
Why doesn't Turkel just end this matter and quote the passage where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him?
Turkel:
Travelling alone was
dangerous in the ancient world, between beasts, thieves, and
community college professors looking to lecture you until your ears
bled, and that by itself is enough to tell us in a High Context that
Dave had someone with him.
Till:
It is? I guess
I'll have to quote again the examples of people who obviously
traveled alone in the "ancient world."
This is a good example of how Turkel thinks that he can say just anything that pops into his head and it should be accepted as gospel truth. Who was with Jacob when he left Canaan and went to Paddanaram (Gen. 28:5)? Who was with Joseph when he left his father's house in the "vale of Hebron" to go to Shechem and then on to Dothan to find his brothers, who were shepherding Jacob's sheep (Gen. 37:12-17)? Who was with Judah when he departed from his brothers in Dothan and went down to Adullam (Gen. 38:1)? Who was with Moses when he fled from Egypt to Midian (Ex. 2:15)? Who was with Jephthah when he fled from his brothers and dwelt in the land of Tob (Judges 11:3)? Who was with the Levite who left Bethlehem-judah and traveled to the hill country of Ephraim (Judges 17:8)? Who was with the Levite who left the far side of the hill country of Ephraim to go after his concubine, who had gone back to her father's house in Bethlehem-judah (Judges 19:2-3)? Who was with Samuel when he went to Carmel and then to Gilgal in his search for Saul on his return from the Amalekite massacre (1 Sam. 15:12)? Who was with the "man of God" who went from Judah to Bethel to rebuke Jeroboam at the altar of the golden calf (1 Kings 13:1-2)? Who was with this same "man of God" when he was killed by the lion on his return trip home (1 Kings 13:24)? Who was with Elijah when he left Samaria and traveled eastward to brook Cherith by the Jordan, where he was fed by the ravens (1 Kings 17:1-7)?
I'll suggest again that Turkel can definitively settle this issue by just quoting the passage where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him. I further suggest that he do this as quickly as possible, because I suspect that it is emotionally painful to Turkel's admirers to see him resorting to so many wild speculations to try to get out of the predicament he got himself into by trying to harmonize a story that he obviously wasn‘t very familiar with.
At this point,
Turkel
went off on another speculative tangent about how little space was in
the narrative for the "guys" with David to have had a
"word on their own," so I will evidently have to reinsert
my analyses of the different sections of the narrative of David's
flight to show that if men were with David, the writer, in keeping
with his style in narrating other events in the life of David, would
have surely made reference to them. I'll do this in Part
Four.
