Till:
When I debate biblical inerrantists,
I have no illusions that I will force them to admit that their
position is wrong, even though it did happen twice. I arrange
debates with them to give the audiences, which will probably have at
least some moderate biblical inerrantists in it, the opportunity to
see that the inerrancy doctrine can be defended only by repeated
postulations of far-fetched scenarios. This debate with Turkel
has given readers one of the best opportunities I have yet seen
to witness the extremes that biblicists will go to in order to
"resolve" biblical discrepancies. Turkel has tied
himself into all kind of verbal knots to find men with David, who he
admits the OT account didn't "specifically say"
were with David. In making this statement, he brought upon
himself the obligation to show us exactly where the accusers of
Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave
showbread to those who were with him. As I continue in this final
part of my reply to Turkel's efforts to find men with David, I
will periodically remind him that Jesus told the accusers of his
disciples that they could have read that David gave some of
the showbread to those who were with him. I will press him to
show us where the accusers could have read this.
I'll now resume my reply where I stopped at the end of Part Three.
Turkel:
With this in mind,
all of Till's issues over "silence in a lengthy
narration" (Lengthy? The only places where the other guys might
have had a word on their own amounts to maybe six verses between
21:10 and 22:1, and we find them indicated in 22:1. Six verses is a
"lengthy narration"?) and challenges me to find a similar
passage with an "extended story of a person, with others
traveling in his company, that refers to only the one person over a
space of 58 verses of narration." 58 verses?? Try 6, maybe even
1 out of 1 (see below). Make a tithe of that selection.
Till:
As I said at the end of
Part Three, I guess I will have to reinsert my analysis of the relevant
verses to show everyone that the narrative wasn't as short as
Turkel wants his readers to believe. He, of course, omitted my
analysis in every one of his so-called replies. He thinks that
if he cuts out significant arguments, his readers won't notice
it, but I intend to keep reminding them of what he tiptoes
around.
In my original article, I first did an analysis of 1 Samuel 21 to
show that there was no basis at all for thinking that men were with
David in this narrative, after which I did an additional analysis of
most of chapter 20.
At this point, I should be able to put a period and go on to another article, but inerrantists won't let it be that simple. No matter how compelling the evidence for discrepancy may be, they will always invent a how-it-could-have-been scenario to "explain" away the discrepancy. In the matter of David's companions, a popular "explanation" is that other men were with David; the biblical account just didn't mention them except when David referred to them in his conversation with the priest Ahimelech, but to confirm that the "men" David referred to in this conversation were nothing more than part of a lie that David told Ahimelech in order to get help during his flight from Saul, I'm going to take the previous chapter, section by section, and show that, as this story was told by a presumably inspired writer, it left no opportunity for David to gather men to accompany him on his flight from Saul. I'll begin with the section that tells of David's and Jonathan's plan to find out if Saul was plotting to kill David. It is rather long, but the best way to attack an inerrantist quibble like this is to walk the quibbler through his own inspired text to show that it offers him no support.
1 Samuel 20:16-34: Thus Jonathan made a covenant with the house of David, saying, "May Yahweh seek out the enemies of David." Jonathan made David swear again by his love for him; for he loved him as he loved his own life. Jonathan said to him, "Tomorrow is the new moon; you will be missed, because your place will be empty. On the day after tomorrow, you shall go a long way down; go to the place where you hid yourself earlier, and remain beside the stone there. I will shoot three arrows to the side of it, as though I shot at a mark. Then I will send the boy, saying, ‘Go, find the arrows.' If I say to the boy, ‘Look, the arrows are on this side of you, collect them,' then you are to come, for, as Yahweh lives, it is safe for you and there is no danger. But if I say to the young man, ‘Look, the arrows are beyond you,' then go; for Yahweh has sent you away. As for the matter about which you and I have spoken, Yahweh is witness between you and me forever."
Certainly, there is nothing in this text to indicate that anyone else was present except David and Jonathan. Indeed, the subject of the conversation was such that we can reasonably assume that they would not have wanted others to overhear it. Furthermore, this conversation took place before David began his flight from Saul, so even if others were present, that would not indicate that they were present three days later. The continuation of the story doesn't even hint that David had anyone with him as he hid in the field.
Verses 24-34: So David hid himself in the field. When the new moon came, the king sat at the feast to eat. The king sat upon his seat, as at other times, upon the seat by the wall. Jonathan stood, while Abner sat by Saul's side; but David's place was empty. Saul did not say anything that day; for he thought, "Something has befallen him; he is not clean, surely he is not clean." But on the second day, the day after the new moon, David's place was empty. And Saul said to his son Jonathan, "Why has the son of Jesse not come to the feast, either yesterday or today?" Jonathan answered Saul, "David earnestly asked leave of me to go to Bethlehem; he said, ‘Let me go; for our family is holding a sacrifice in the city, and my brother has commanded me to be there. So now, if I have found favor in your sight, let me get away, and see my brothers.' For this reason he has not come to the king's table."
Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan. He said to him, "You son of a perverse, rebellious woman! Do I not know that you have chosen the son of Jesse to your own shame, and to the shame of your mother's nakedness? For as long as the son of Jesse lives upon the earth, neither you nor your kingdom shall be established. Now send and bring him to me, for he shall surely die." Then Jonathan answered his father Saul, "Why should he be put to death? What has he done?" But Saul threw his spear at him to strike him; so Jonathan knew that it was the decision of his father to put David to death. Jonathan rose from the table in fierce anger and ate no food on the second day of the month, for he was grieved for David, and because his father had disgraced him.
We learn in this section of the story, that Jonathan and David had made a plan. David, in accordance with the plan, hid in a field while Jonathan went to the feast. We would certainly understand that people were present at the feast of the new moon that Saul had given, but David wasn't there. He was hiding in a field, and the text mentioned nothing at all about anyone else's being with him. Indeed, if David had taken others with him that would have jeopardized the whole plan that he had devised, because the whole purpose of the plan was to hide David in a place where he would be safe from Saul. One person could very likely hide unseen in a field for three days, but a group of men would have increased the chances of being seen, not even to mention the possibility that if David had taken a group with him, he would have run the risk of having one or more of them sneak away to blow his cover. The very nature of the plan that David and Jonathan devised certainly implied that David hid alone in the field.
The day after the clash with his father, Jonathan came to tell David what he had learned at Saul's banquet.
Verses 35-40: In the morning Jonathan went out into the field to the appointment with David, and with him was a little boy. He said to the boy, "Run and find the arrows that I shoot." As the boy ran, he shot an arrow beyond him. When the boy came to the place where Jonathan's arrow had fallen, Jonathan called after the boy and said, "Is the arrow not beyond you?" Jonathan called after the boy, "Hurry, be quick, do not linger." So Jonathan's boy gathered up the arrows and came to his master. But the boy knew nothing; only Jonathan and David knew the arrangement. Jonathan gave his weapons to the boy and said to him, "Go and carry them to the city."
In this section of the chapter, there were only three persons: David, hiding in the field; Jonathan, shooting the arrows; and the boy retrieving the arrows. After the boy had retrieved the arrows, Jonathan sent him back into the city. That left just Jonathan and David, and as the text will later show, only after the boy was gone, did David rise up in the field and go to Jonathan. David's waiting until the boy was gone before showing himself to Jonathan was just another indication of the urgent need that David felt to keep his whereabouts a tight secret, so everything related thus far in this story indicates that David was by himself in the field.
Verses 41-42: As soon as the boy had gone, David rose from beside the stone heap and prostrated himself with his face to the ground. He bowed three times, and they kissed each other, and wept with each other; David wept the more. Then Jonathan said to David, "Go in peace, since both of us have sworn in the name of Yahweh, saying, ‘Yahweh shall be between me and you, and between my descendants and your descendants, forever.'" He got up and left; and Jonathan went into the city.
So as soon as David learned from Jonathan that Saul intended to kill him, David "got up and left," and Jonathan returned to the city. This statement ended chapter 20, and the next chapter began with David's encounter with Ahimelech in the town of Nob. There isn't a hint anywhere in this entire story that anyone else besides Jonathan, the boy, and David were in the field in the final scene, so if Jonathan and the boy returned to the city, who were these men that some inerrantists claim were with David but just weren't mentioned?
This analysis covered verses 16 through 42, which would be 27 verses, but the narrative actually begins with the first verse of chapter 20, which tells of David‘s return to Jonathan after a previous flight from Saul. In the first 15 verses, the writer specifically mentioned Jonathan, so this section confirms that when David had someone with him the writer would mention it, just as he mentioned Jonathan and the boy in the closing verses of chapter 20. Chapter 21 has 15 verses, so 42 + 15 = 57. To this must be added the first verse of 22:1, because it was here that the writer noted that men joined David at the cave of Adullam. Hence, over the space of 58 verses, the writer of this narrative specifically mentioned when others besides David were involved in the events of the narration, but from the time that David "arose and departed"--in haste, don't forget--until men joined David at the cave of Adullam, the narrator did not mention any men who were with David.
Jesus, however, told the accusers of Jesus's disciples that they could have read that David gave some of the showbread to those who were with David. Where exactly could they have read that? Turkel can put his answer after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
Now we have a place
where Till said that Dave would not be afraid of the king of Gath if
he had men with him.
Till:
Here is another good
example of how Turkel flagrantly misrepresents, so why don't we
look at what I actually said and not at what Turkel said that
I said? Here it is with emphasis added to call attention to
Turkel's misrepresentation.
When David arrived in Gath, a city of the Philistines, he aroused concern among the people of the city.
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'?" David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of King Achish of Gath.
David was "very much afraid of King Achish." If David had had a contingent of men with him, he would surely have commanded some respect from the people of the town, especially since David was the one who had killed the giant Goliath, who was from the town of Gath (1 Sam. 17:4-23). On the other hand, an Israelite in Philistia with no men in his company would have had good reason to be afraid.
So I did not say that David would not have been afraid at all if he had had men with him but that he would have surely commanded "some respect" from the people of the town. I went on to explain that, as it was, David felt the need to feign insanity by drooling saliva down his beard and scratching on the gate to the city. What did the contingent of men with David do while he was putting on this act? Did they just stand aside shrugging their shoulders at people who wondered what was going on?
In addition to those comments in my original articles, I also replied to Turkel's postulation of a contingent of "five or ten" men with David, which seems to have been reduced to just "two or three" in Turkel's latest reply. I wonder why, if he saw textual reasons to "infer" a contingent of "five or ten," the textual information he based this "inference" on later had to be reduced to "two or three"? We don't know, because Turkel never bothers to explicate texts to explain the reasons for his "inferences." If he needs an inference, he just grabs it out of thin air.
Anyway, here was my reply to his "inference" that a contingent of "five or ten" men were with David in Gath.
Another look at the passage that tells of David's layover in Gath should show that the silence of this text, combined with the failure to mention men with David anywhere else, is sufficient to conclude that no one was with David at the time. In quoting the passage, I will emphasize key words in bold print.
1 Samuel
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?"
It does seem strange that in the narration of this event in Gath, nothing at all was said about the contingent of "five or ten" who were with David at the time. The text used only the singular pronouns he and his in reference to David, and in quoting what Achish said about the "madman" at the gate of his city, he referred to David as "the man" or "this fellow." In asking if "this fellow" should come into his house, we have the most telling part of this narrative in terms of whether David was alone or with a contingent of "five or ten." If he had had such a contingent, why wouldn't Achish have said something like, "Shall this fellow come into my house? Let his friends see to him"?
This point was discussed at length in my article, but Turkel in his typical fashion didn't let his readers see it. I won't bother to quote it, but I do want readers to see an additional textual analysis to show that after David left Gath and went to the cave of Adullam, the text specifically states that he was joined by about "four hundred" people. This is the first reference that the narrator of this tale made to others besides David, and thereafter, as his narration continued, he made repeated references to those who were with David.
The fact that king Achish and his servants discussed David during his stayover in Gath but never once mentioned anyone in his company is very telling in a narrative in which (as I explained earlier), the writer would specifically mention when anyone like Jonathan or Saul or the boy in the field would be involved in a scene. If this was the writer's style in chapter 20 and if the writer resumed this style immediately after men joined David at the cave of Adullam in 22:1, that is strong textual evidence for my position that Turkel should respond to. Instead, he has skipped it from the moment he presumed to "explain" away this problem.
He can quickly settle the matter now by just quoting where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave some of the showbread to "those who were with him." Turkel can quote it in the blank space after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
I made the points
that, sure, if the contingent numbered in the thousands, but no one
argues that, and I noted that five or ten (or even two or three)
would command no respect and would be the right size for an escape
party that didn't want to be noticed, and will still have
reason to be fearful if things went wrong.
Till:
As readers evaluate
another of Turkel's quibbles, they should keep in mind, as I
pointed out in the quotation from my article reinserted above, that
the giant whom David had killed with just a sling, was from Gath, and
David was known well enough to be immediately recognized as the one
who had killed "his ten thousands" (v:10). The
Gittites apparently held David in awe, so if he had had just a few
men with him, he probably would not have felt the need to pretend
insanity.
Of course, all of this is just silly stuff, because we are probably talking about fictionalized history, so we are speculating about what a fictional character should have done in a fictional situation. Fiction or not, however, if Jesus said that the accusers could have read where David gave showbread to men with him, there is a discrepancy in the Bible unless Turkel can quote where the OT account specifically mentions men with David and specifically states that he gave some of the showbread to them.
Turkel:
In response Farrell
accuses me of using a number "pulled out of the air"
(this is one of those "how-it-could-have-been"
high-context scenarios Till doesn't like, based on common sense and
detective work;
Till:
If the number wasn't
pulled out of thin air, why was the number first five to ten but
later just two or three? That sounds like thin air to me.
Turkel says that the number was based on "common sense and
detective work," so why doesn't he list for us below the
specific steps that he took to arrive at his conclusion that men had
to have been with David. He can list them after the numbers
below.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
If he went through more steps than this in his "common-sense detective work," he can, of course, add numbers to the list. He keeps pounding his chest about "inferential reasoning" and common-sense" processes that he goes through to reach his conclusions, but has anyone else noticed that he never bothers to explain the steps that he went through to reach those conclusions.
Turkel can just end this matter right now by quoting the passage where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to those who were with him. He can put it in the blank space after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
you would think we
had suggested David was being helped by aliens from Alpha Centauri)
Till:
I can't speak for
others, but I know that I don't think that at all. I
think only that Turkel has claimed by "inferential reasoning"
to have determined that men were with David, but he has never
bothered to explain the basis for that "inferential
reasoning." He has postulated "allies"
breaking their necks to help David and send him on his way, he has
postulated David's making unmentioned stops to get men to go
with him--while neglecting to get also weapons and food while he was
gathering these men around him-- but I have patiently answered those
one by one. We'll wait to see Turkel reply to those
rebuttals.
Well, I'll have to retract that statement, because I have no expectation at all that he will even try to answer them. He will hop, skip, and jump over them just as he does to every argument or rebuttal he can't answer.
Turkel:
and re-re-re-repeats
his earlier argument about David lying,
Till:
If Turkel would answer
my arguments, I wouldn't have to repeat them, but as long as he
continues to hop, skip, and jump, I intend to keep repeating that
which he evades. It is an effective way to keep his admirers
reminded of his evasion.
Turkel is finding that preaching to his choir in a closed forum is much easier than facing informed opposition, and he obviously doesn't like the latter.
Turkel:
which we have already
addressed.
Till:
Yeah, right! And
how did Turkel "address" this argument? Well, let
me just quote what he said for those who may have forgotten it.
(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!)
There folks is an example of Turkel's great "common sense" and "detective work." He "addresses" an argument by lying, because he no more believes that David meant that he was on a secret mission for "King Yahweh" than I believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant word of God.
Turkel also "addressed" the lying argument with this.
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. 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.
I replied to that with this.
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?
I also gave an additional rebuttal argument, which showed that David's statement that the "men" with him had kept themselves sexually pure was further proof that he was spinning an elaborate lie to try to get Ahimelech's help, because if he departed in haste, neither he nor the men allegedly with him could have prepared themselves sexually for a mission that was called in haste. I won't bother to impose on the readers' patience by quoting the "common-sense detective work" that I did to find supporting evidence for this conclusion. Turkel won't even answer it where I developed the argument close to the beginning of Part Three of this round, so why bother to quote it again here?
Turkel:
When you can't
respond to a new argument, repeat your reply to an old one to cover
your proboscis.
Till:
I have just shown that
I replied to this "new argument" in detail, but if Turkel
thinks that I didn't reply to it, I will make him an offer.
If he will quote this argument in an article by itself, I will reply
to it immediately if he will agree to reciprocate and reply to
arguments of mine that he has skipped over.
Turkel's bluff has been called. Let's see what he does.
Turkel:
Not that there isn't
a new one. Till says he has a "coup de grace" hidden in
the chapter showing David lied about the men:
Till:
Yes, I did say that, but the real
coup de grace was the ace I was holding back by leaving
unemphasized Jesus's claim that the accusers of his disciples
could have read where David gave showbread to those who were
with him.
Where could they have read that, Turk? Just put your answer in the blank space after your ID marker below.
Turkel:
Till [quoted by Turkel]:
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.
Turkel:
That's a coup de disgrace, all
right.
Till:
Okay, everybody watch how Turkel
explains that this was a "coup de disgrace."
Turkel:
Now let's put on our thinking
caps after disposing of another disgrace. Till tries to anticipate a
rebuttal from us translating one of the words in Hebrew as
"heretofore" so that it doesn't mean three days. Nah, we
won't hunt that dog. We don't need to.
Till:
"We don't
need to" actually means "we don't dare to."
He can see that the argument is solid. I hope Turkel's
admirers will mark this down as another argument that Turkel hopped,
skipped, and jumped over.
Turkel:
Let's make it
simple. First of all, no lie is established by association. We have
no beef in suggesting that Dave lied about the men being pure and
maybe by implication about the king's mission,
Till:
Uh, excuse me? I
thought Turkel had decided that "the king" in David's
statement about the secret mission for the king really meant "King
Yahweh," and so David was telling the truth all along, but now
Turkel says that he has "no beef in suggesting that David
lied." Turkel can't seem to make up his mind.
Is this kind of inconsistency and on-all/off-again argumentation the
result of that "common sense" and "detective work"
that Turkel keeps talking about?
Turkel:
while being truthful
in the basic idea of actually having men with him.
Till:
So now Turkel's
position seems to be that David lied about being on a secret mission
for the king, and he lied about the sexual purity of him and his
"men," but he was telling the truth about having the men
with him. What will be Turkel's position if there is a
third round of exchanges?
There were three bits of information in David's statement to Ahimelech: (1) He was on a secret mission for the king. (2) He had men with him. (3) These men had abstained from sex and were sexually pure enough to eat the showbread. Turkel wants us to think that it is "common sense" and good "detective work" to conclude that numbers (1) and (3) were lies but that number (2) was the truth. Of course, the fact that Turkel needs number (2) to be the truth in order for a New Testament scripture to be inerrant had nothing to do with his "common-sense" conclusion, did it?
If Turkel recognizes that (1) and (3) were lies, then he must have strong textual evidence to conclude that (2) was the truth, even though by his own admission the OT account of David's flight didn't "specifically say" that men were with him. Now I would like to ask Turkel to do two things for us.
1. Will you please explain to us what kind of textual detective work you used to determine that (1) and (3) were lies but (2) was the truth?
2. Will you quote for us the passage in this Old Testament story where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave some of the showbread to those who were with him?
Folks--and especially Turkel's admirers--watch him hop, skip, and jump right over these questions.
Turkel:
But let's not
even have to go that far. Question: When do you suppose Dave decided
that Nob would be a good first stop?
Till:
I don't know.
The text doesn't say, but as I have explained, I see no reason
at all to think that when David "arose and departed" from
the field where he had met with Jonathan, he immediately decided,
"Hey, I should head for Nob; that would be a good place to get
help if I need it. With all of the people there at the
tabernacle, I probably won't even be noticed."
Turkel:
Did he spend that
three days in the field filing his nails, doing the disco, and
whistling Dixie? No, and it does not take a how-it-could-have-been to
suggest he was planning his itinerary and deciding where to go to gas
up while getting the least attention --
Till:
As this story was spun,
as far as David actually knew, he wouldn't be going anywhere,
because he was waiting for Jonathan to find out what Saul's
disposition was, but let's go on and take a look at the mess
that Turkel gets himself into below.
Turkel:
even sneaking off at
night to make the arrangements.
Till:
Turkel could save
himself a lot of embarrassment if he would just read the biblical
stories that he claims expertise in. David had fled from Saul
in chapter 19, and when his wife Michal (Saul's daughter)
lowered him through a window (1 Sam. 19:11-17), he had barely escaped
from the men whom Saul had sent to kill him. David fled to
Ramah to report to Samuel what was happening (19:18ff), and
when David returned from Ramah, he went to Jonathan, who promised to
help David (1 Sam. 20:5). At this point, details of Jonathan's
and David's plan were related.
1 Samuel 20:5 And David said to Jonathan, "Indeed tomorrow is the New Moon, and I should not fail to sit with the king to eat. But let me go, that I may hide in the field until the third day at evening
Jonathan then suggested that they go to the field and formulate their plans.
Verse 11 And Jonathan said to David, "Come, let us go out into the field." So both of them went out into the field. 12Then Jonathan said to David: "Yahweh God of Israel is witness! When I have sounded out my father sometime tomorrow, or the third day, and indeed there is good toward David, and I do not send to you and tell you, 13may Yahweh do so and much more to Jonathan. But if it pleases my father to do you evil, then I will report it to you and send you away, that you may go in safety.
Jonathan then secured a promise from David that he would be spared when Yahweh had destroyed all of David's enemies. Then Jonathan began to tell David what signal he would use to report Saul's disposition toward David.
Verse 18 Then Jonathan said to David, "Tomorrow is the New Moon; and you will be missed, because your seat will be empty. 19And when you have stayed three days, go down quickly and come to the place where you hid on the day of the deed; and remain by the stone Ezel.
The plan, then, was for David to wait in this field for three days to receive from Jonathan a signal that would tell David of Saul's intentions. I said earlier than David had hidden in the field for at least one day and night, and that was based on the verse just quoted, which some inerrantists interpreted to mean that Jonathan told David to go into the field after "three days." In my opinion that is a rather strained interpretation. It seems more likely that Jonathan was telling David to hide in the field but after three days to move to a another place, i.e., by the stone Ezel, so that Jonathan would know where to find him. The next verse indicates that David did remain in the field.
Verse 24 Then David hid in the field. And when the New Moon had come, the king sat down to eat the feast.
David hid in the field, and then the new moon came, which was to begin on the day after David and Jonathan began their conversation (v:5). The feast began the next day, and Jonathan determined on the second day of the feast (v:27) that Saul intended to kill David. After an angry encounter with his father, Jonathan then went to the field to signal to David that it wasn't safe for him. Hence, the text indicates that David had actually spent three days in the field, which would by "inferential reasoning" explain why he was so desperate for food that he took the high risk of going to a center of religious activity to find food.
Turkel suggested above that we should put on our "thinking caps," so I am going to suggest that he put on his. David had fled from Saul in chapter 19 and had returned at the beginning of chapter 20. Uppermost on his mind at that time was Saul's intentions toward him, so he found Jonathan and asked for his help (as explained above), so with David's being so concerned about Saul's intentions that he had already fled from him once, how likely would it be that David would have wandered around the area packing food and recruiting men to go with him in case he had to flee from Saul again? Wasn't the purpose of hiding in the field to get David out of public view so that Saul wouldn‘t know where he was? If Jonathan and he had gone to so much trouble to devise a plan that would keep David out of sight, why would David have wandered about and possibly negated what the plan was supposed to do?
Think, Turk, think! Maybe you should trade your thinking cap in for a new one.
At any rate, why are we even having this discussion? Why doesn't Turkel just quote the passage 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 in the blank space after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
Contrary to Till, we
think Nob was a top choice.
Till:
So Turkel thinks that
it was a "top choice" for David to go to the center of
Hebrew worship at that time, where priests would be officiating daily
at the altar as the people brought their sacrifices? Does
Turkel think that this choice was a better one than going to the farm
houses of one of David's many "allies," where there
would have been much less risk of being seen?
Perhaps Turkel will share with us the "common sense" and "detective work" that led him to that decision.
Oh, he told us below, didn't he? Well, let's take a look at what happens when Turkel puts on his thinking cap.
Turkel:
It was in the
opposite direction from Bethlehem and in the direction of Gibeah,
Saul's doghouse.
Till:
Here is where Turkel
got himself into the mess that I mentioned above. He had made a
statement once before that made me think that he thought that David
had fled from Jerusalem toward Nob, but it seems that he thinks that
David fled from Bethlehem. Either way, Turkel has again
demonstrated his ignorance of a biblical story that he arrogantly
tries to present himself as an expert in.
David did not flee from Bethlehem. In chapter 19, David had fled from Saul to go see the prophet Samuel in Ramah, and then Samuel and he went to Naioth (vs:18-19). When Saul found out that David was there, David fled from Naioth and went to Jonathan (20:1). Jonathan was where Saul's feast of the new moon was about to be held, so where would this have been except in Gibeah, where Saul‘s home was? We learn from 1 Samuel 10:26 that after the prophet Samuel had anointed him king, Saul "went home to Gibeah." This town was mentioned later as the place of Saul's residence.
A fanciful little yarn is related in 1 Samuel 11 about messengers who came from Jabesh-gilead to report that the Ammonites had laid siege to their city and intended to gouge out every man's right eye.
1 Samuel 11:4 So the messengers came to Gibeah of Saul and told the news in the hearing of the people. And all the people lifted up their voices and wept. 5Now there was Saul, coming behind the herd from the field; and Saul said, "What troubles the people, that they weep?"
Other passages also reported that Gibeah was Saul's home.
1 Samuel 14:2 And Saul abode in the uttermost part of Gibeah under the pomegranate-tree which is in Migron: and the people that were with him were about six hundred men....
1 Samuel 14:16 And the watchmen of Saul in Gibeah of Benjamin looked; and, behold, the multitude melted away, and they went hither and thither.
1 Samuel 15:34 Then Samuel went to Ramah, and Saul went up to his house at Gibeah of Saul.
So there is no reason at all to think that the conversation between David and Jonathan took place anywhere else but in a field near Saul's home in Gibeah, where he held the feast of the new moon. Indeed, Saul heard about the incident at Nob while he was at his home in Gibeah.
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?
So if David fled from Gibeah and went to Nob, he could hardly have been going in the direction of Gibeah, unless Turkel can explain how when someone flees from point X, he will be traveling in the direction of point X. Perhaps Turkel knows of some "inferential reasoning" or "common sense" or "detective work" that could explain how if David fled from Gibeah, he would have been traveling in the direction of Gibeah.
Folks--those of you who think that Turkel is the final word in biblical apologetics--let this be a lesson to you. Your hero sets himself up as an authority in biblical subjects that he really knows little about. He twice referred to Achish, the king of Gath, as the king of Achish, and now he has David taking flight from Bethlehem toward Gibeah, when in reality the textual evidence showed that David fled from Gibeah. How likely is it that someone so confused about basic facts of this story would have the insights to have figured out by "inferential reasoning," "common sense," and good "detective work" that men were with David even though they were never mentioned.
Why doesn't he just quote for us the text where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave some of the showbread to "those who were with him"?
Turkel:
The priests had
bread and had it in abundance.
Till:
Oh, they did?
1 Samuel 21:4 And the priest answered David and said, "There is no common bread on hand; but there is holy bread....
Verse 6 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread which had been taken from before Yahweh, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away.
The showbread at the tabernacle consisted of 12 "cakes," which the priests were to eat when it was replaced with fresh cakes each sabbath day (Lev. 24:5-9; 1 Chron. 9:32), so with a colony of 85 priests at Nob, I don't see why Turkel would think that David would believe that the priests would have bread "in abundance." Maybe Turkel determined this by using some "inferential reasoning" and "common sense" and "detective work" that eludes the ordinary reader.
Turkel:
But of course it WAS
holy bread.
Till:
Yes, it was "holy
bread," which was made from two tenths of an "ephad of
flour" (Lev. 24:5). That would have amount to about 1.16
gallons of flour per loaf. I would hardly consider that bread
"in abundance," especially since the bread was probably
unleavened (1 Chron. 23:29). Furthermore, I would think that as
righteous as David was described to be in the Old Testament, he would
have known that the priests ate the showbread when it was replaced
with fresh cakes.
Leviticus 24:8 Every Sabbath he shall set it in order before Yahweh continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant. 9And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy to him from the offerings of Yahweh made by fire, by a perpetual statute."
And Turkel doesn't want to forget that Jesus himself said that it was lawful only for the priests to eat this bread (Mark 2:26), so if Jesus said this, it had to be true, didn't it? Why then would David, knowing that the cakes were eaten by the priests when they were replaced with new ones think that there would be bread "in abundance" at Nob? After all, Ahimelech gave to David the old cakes that had been replaced with the fresh ones.
1 Samuel 21:7 So the priest gave him holy bread; for there was no bread there but the showbread which had been taken from before Yahweh, in order to put hot bread in its place on the day when it was taken away.
I don't know why David would have thought that this bread would not yet have been eaten by the priests at Nob, but I'm sure that Turkel used some kind of "inferential reasoning" and "common sense," not to mention "detective work," to determine that David thought there would have been bread "in abundance" at Nob. Maybe Turkel can explain to us why David would have thought he had a better chance of finding bread "in abundance" at Nob than he would have had he just stopped in at the home of one of his many "allies."
Maybe he can also quote for us the text 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:
Now step 2, which
doesn't require a lot of hichbing around either. David says, and Till
agrees that he says, that his men are pure even for common journeys,
more so for important ones like the one he was on now. Well, now, how
is that possible? What did David do otherwise when there were
previously urgent missions? If there was a Philistine raid less than
a day away, and action was needed ASAP, then did David have to wait
two days and let the Philistines trample all over the place until
some men were three days' pure?
Till:
No "hichbing"
is required here? Turkel conveniently overlooks that David was
lying through his teeth to tell Ahimelech whatever he thought was
necessary to get his help. How then would Turkel know that
David was telling the truth here and that he always kept his men pure
even for "common journeys"? One has to wonder why
Ahimelech didn't immediately see through this lie and say,
"Well, David, what I don't understand is how your men
could have known to keep themselves pure so that they would be
qualified to go on this secret mission that arose so unexpectedly
that you didn't even have time to gather supplies and
weapons." At any rate, a sudden attack by the Philistines
would have been another unexpected event that would have called for a
sudden, unexpected mission, so David's men could not have kept
themselves sexually ready for such events unless they had taken a
permanent vow of chastity.
If Turkel would get himself a new "thinking cap," perhaps he could see that there is no problem here as long as one through "inferential reasoning" and "common sense" realizes that David had spun one long, elaborate lie in order to get Ahimelech's help.
Turkel:
If this system is
something that is in effect, then David obviously had to have
provision for urgent missions where holiness was needed. What that is
does not matter -- whether he had men who were unmarried and/or
remained celibate over shifts of days so that there would always be
someone ready, he had to have some way to ensure that urgent missions
were not delayed by lack of personal purity.
Till:
No, there is no
"hichbing" here, is there? After all the "hichbing"
Turkel has engaged in to explain the Abiathar and men-with-David
problem in Mark 2:26, he surely won't have the gall ever again
to accuse me or any other skeptic of engaging in how-it-could-have
beening.
The simpler explanation takes away all of the problems. David was simply lying to Ahimelech, so he was saying whatever he felt was necessary to get the help he wanted. Has Turkel ever heard of Occam's razor, which says that explanations should not be multiplied beyond the simplest one?
If Turkel had even a tenth as much familiarity with the Bible as he pretends to have in his pompous website articles, he would know that such nonsensical narratives as David's encounter with Ahimelech are fairly commonplace. I'll quote just one example.
1 Samuel 11:1 1Then Nahash the Ammonite came up and encamped against Jabesh Gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, "Make a covenant with us, and we will serve you." 2And Nahash the Ammonite answered them, "On this condition I will make a covenant with you, that I may put out all your right eyes, and bring reproach on all Israel." 3Then the elders of Jabesh said to him, "Hold off for seven days, that we may send messengers to all the territory of Israel. And then, if there is no one to save us, we will come out to you."4So the messengers came to Gibeah of Saul and told the news in the hearing of the people. And all the people lifted up their voices and wept. 5Now there was Saul, coming behind the herd from the field; and Saul said, "What troubles the people, that they weep?" And they told him the words of the men of Jabesh. 6Then the Spirit of God came upon Saul when he heard this news, and his anger was greatly aroused. 7So he took a yoke of oxen and cut them in pieces, and sent them throughout all the territory of Israel by the hands of messengers, saying, "Whoever does not go out with Saul and Samuel to battle, so it shall be done to his oxen." And the fear of the LORD fell on the people, and they came out with one consent. 8When he numbered them in Bezek, the children of Israel were three hundred thousand, and the men of Judah thirty thousand. 9And they said to the messengers who came, "Thus you shall say to the men of Jabesh Gilead: ‘Tomorrow, by the time the sun is hot, you shall have help.'" Then the messengers came and reported it to the men of Jabesh, and they were glad. 10Therefore the men of Jabesh said, "Tomorrow we will come out to you, and you may do with us whatever seems good to you."
Who can believe such silliness as this? The Ammonites laid siege against Jabesh and issued an ultimatum, which called for horrendous consequences if the people of Jabesh accepted it. So what did the people of Jabesh do? They said, "Don't attack for seven days so that we can send messengers throughout Israel to see if others will come to our rescue. If they don't, then we will accept your ultimatum." Since the text says that the messengers were sent out, I suppose that we can use "inferential reasoning" to "infer" that the Ammonites said, "Yeah, sure, go ahead and do that. We have you by the short hairs, but we believe in fair play, so go ahead and send the messengers." Then I guess we are to "infer" that the Ammonites gave the messengers safe passage to go in and out.
The same kind of silliness is in the story of David's encounter with Ahimelech. There were so many clues to David's deception that a moron should have recognized them, but Ahimelech didn't, because this is an inspired-word-of-God story where all sorts of absurdities were narrated.
Anyway, Turkel can easily settle this whole matter 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. He can put it after his ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
Or else, if David was
a smart boy and saw the wrath of Saul coming (and heck, how could he
miss it!), he had more plans in his head than we would want to give
credit for. Either way this three-day chastity parade isn't
more than a popgun in Till's one-dimensional arsenal.
Till:
Turkel evades another
argument. The three-day chastity claim was just another of
David's lies to Ahimelech, and the fact that David had been on
the run from Saul prior to the flight recorded in chapters 20-21 and
the fact that the text, as I have repeatedly analyzed it, says that
David hid in a field for three days after his return to Gibeah just
don't allow for all of these "plans" that Turkel
"infers" that David had in his head. Is anyone else
noticing that Turkel never gives his rationale for "inferring"
this or that? He simply declares that they are inferences
derived from "common sense" and good "detective
work," yet he is so ignorant of basic details of the narrative
in question that he didn't even know where David's flight
started or that Achish was a person and not a country.
There's your hero, folks. You can have him, but those of you who want him as your hero should try to persuade him to quote the passage in this story where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to "those who were with him."
Turkel:
Now this point. Till
made much over the lack of notice of Dave's guys while in Gath.
On this we'd like to expand our dimensions a bit.
Till:
Please notice that as "we"
expand "our" dimensions, Turkel gives exactly no
textual evidence to support those "dimensions." He
simply declares arbitrarily that this or that could have
happened. It is "hitchbing" at its crassest.
Turkel:
Any guys with David
were probably not there for the long haul and did not have the
Mayflower van behind them.
Till:
See how Turkel thinks
that he can joke his way out of the corners he gets trapped in?
Turkel:
If Dave is in the
throne room at Gath alone, so what? Dave is their agent and
representative. The rest of the group can wait outside at a specified
location and until a certain time, and if Dave doesn't make it out by
then, they know it's all either A-OK or dead in the water.
Till:
Here we see another
example of how Turkel, the expert in all biblical matters, is
proposing solutions to problems in a story whose details he seems
ignorant of. I have already pointed out that Turkel thought
that Achish was a country instead of the person who was king of Gath
and that he seemed to think that David had fled from Bethlehem when
the textual evidence points to Gibeah as his place of departure, and
now we see Turkel proposing that David could have been alone in the
throne room of Gath as the "agent" or "representative"
of his men who were waiting outside at a "specified location."
Did he use "inferential reasoning" and "common sense" and good "detective work" to arrive at this how-it-could-have-been? Why don't we let his inspired, inerrant word of God evaluate the likeliness of his "inference"?
1 Samuel 21:11 David rose and fled that day from Saul; he went to King Achish of Gath. 11The 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'?" 12David took these words to heart and was very much afraid of King Achish of Gath. 13So 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. 14Achish said to his servants, "Look, you see the man is mad; why then have you brought him to me? 15Do I lack madmen, that you have brought this fellow to play the madman in my presence? Shall this fellow come into my house?"
David went "to king Achish of Gath," but does that mean that he was taken into Achish's house or palace for an audience? The text indicates otherwise, because it described how David scratched marks on the doors "of the gate," which implies that he was not in the throne room but was being observed from inside, perhaps through a window, and Achish didn't like what he saw. He asked, "Shall this fellow come into my house?" Why wouldn't that indicate that David hadn't actually gone into the king's house?
I would think that this would be an inference with far more evidence to support it than Turkel's "inferences" about the many "allies" of David, the unmentioned stops, and the "abundance" of bread at Nob. At any rate, Turkel is going to quibble. That's one thing you can be certain of, so you can probably expect him to argue that even though David didn't actually get into to see Achish, while he was trying to, the men with David were still waiting somewhere "at a specified location until a certain time."
To this, I will ask Turkel to present the textual evidence that led his "common sense" to reach this "inference." I'll ask again if anyone else is noticing that Turkel offers no textual evidence at all to support these wild speculations, but if he will study literary interpretation a bit, he will perhaps learn that inferences must be derived from what a written text says and not from what it does not say or what the reader wants it to say. If men were with David at this time, waiting at a "specified location," Turkel must have determined this from something that the text said.
What was that textual statement that led him to reach this "inference"? Why doesn't he just quote for us 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?
Turkel:
Either that, or Dave
alone as leader of the pack would be presented to the king alone,
Till:
But as I just showed,
the text indicates that David wasn't presented to the king.
He was denied an audience--and rather angrily too.
Turkel:
while the other
fellows took a break somewhere outside making passes at the Gathite
women.
Till:
Oh, they couldn't
have done that. They had to remain sexually pure as they always
did even on ordinary missions. Remember?
Turkel:
In any case I
maintain the same argument: There's no need to tell how the men stood
around doing nothing while Dave did the Crazy Dance, and it is absurd
to demand mention of every niggling detail in such a short space.
Till:
But it is necessary to
cite the textual evidence that led to Turkel's "inference"
(through "common sense" and "detective work,"
of course) that there were men with David to sit around and do
nothing while David was feigning insanity, so where is that textual
evidence? Why didn't Turkel just quote that evidence and
show us how the text must necessarily lead to the conclusion that men
were with David at this time?
Now that I have called it to their attention, I trust readers are noticing that Turkel never offers any kind of textual support for these "inferences." He just asserts them.
Turkel:
A high-context
society doesn't care unless something important happens, and an
oral-based society doesn't need the needless clutter in their
memories.
Till:
So then maybe Turkel
will explain to us why the writer of 1 Samuel consistently referred
"specifically" to the men who were with David before
his flight from Saul began and why he consistently referred to men
who were with David after men had joined David at the cave of
Adullam. Was the writer just needlessly cluttering his
narrative in these places with unnecessary information that a
"high-context" society couldn't have cared less
about?
How many times do we read in the narratives of this "high-context culture" such needless clutter as in the examples below.
2 Samuel 23:1 Now these are the last words of David: The oracle of David, son of Jesse....
Why bother telling readers that David was the son of Jesse, as if readers of the "high-context" Hebrew culture by this time would not have known this. Such clutter!
And what about the clutter in this passage?
Joshua 13:1 Now Joshua was old, advanced in years. And Yahweh said to him: "You are old, advanced in years, and there remains very much land yet to be possessed.
Now why the clutter of this kind of repetition? Why would this "high-context" society that Turkel talks about have needed this kind of repetition?
As expert as he is in Hebrew, Turkel should know that a form of repetition called "parallelism" frequently occurred in Hebrew writing, as we see in the following examples.
Zechariah 9:9 Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, lowly and riding on a donkey, a colt, the foal of a donkey.
Genesis 35:13 Then God went up from him in the place where He talked with him. 14So Jacob set up a pillar in the place where He talked with him, a pillar of stone; and he poured a drink offering on it, and he poured oil on it. 15And Jacob called the name of the place where God spoke with him, Bethel.
Why this kind of repetition in this "high-context" culture that Turkel talks about? Wouldn't a "high-context" culture, as Turkel perceives it, have easily understood that the king was coming on a donkey? Why repeat the concept with "colt" and "foal"? Look how many times the passage in Genesis 35 repeated "the place where he [Jacob] talked." Wouldn't Turkel's "high-context" culture have understood without all this repetition? Wouldn't this "high-context" culture have understood that the pillar Jacob built was made of stones? Why clutter the text by repeating pillar to note that it had been made of stones?
Well, the fact is that this "high-context" culture is mainly in Turkel's mind, because the Bible is filled with examples of tedious repetition of rather mundane information. Anyone who has studied the Bible much at all knows this, so it isn't necessary to give additional examples. Turkel thinks that the men with David were there by implication and that this "high-context" culture would have recognized that they were, but this "high-context" culture had to have things repeated as they were in the examples quoted above.
I have already commented on this high-context/low-context theory and noted that it is a new theory that applies primarily to spoken language and not written language, so we have another example here of Turkel spouting off about things that he really knows little about.
Turkel:
Till the low-context
reader begs and begs and begs to differ, still insists it is
"strange" to see no mention of Dave's contingent,
especially in light of repeated mention of Dave's 400 men later (who
we should remind the reader, actually DID do something, i.e., go out
beating up Philistines, and also serve to emphasize that Saul's
rule was disaffecting people, whereas we cannot assume that anyone
with Dave did anything more than carry the bags), and even puts words
in the mouth of King A. for him to say: "Shall this fellow come
into my house? Let his friends see to him"?
Till:
Notice again how Turkel
yaks and yaks and yaks about how-it-could-have-beens but says
absolutely nothing at all about textual evidence that would support
his suppositions. When is the last time that Turkel even
attempted to quote textual evidence?
Why doesn't he just settle this once and for all and quote the passage where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave showbread to "those who were with him"? Long on hot air but short on real evidence--that is Turkel's kind of apologetics.
Turkel:
Yeah, right! In this
age when insanity was considered a sign of impurity or possession,
that's like expecting someone today to have the poise and good
manners to have Hannibal Lechter removed by saying, "He's
not welcome here. Would you please take him outside for the police?"
King A.'s strong reaction to his servants, his demand and giving of
orders for immediate action by his servants, was exactly what we
would expect, and if David's men were anywhere around the
throne room, they were mere window dressing and unworthy of comment.
Till:
As I showed above,
there is nothing in the text to indicate that David ever got into the
"throne room." To the contrary, the text indicates
that Achish didn't want to let him into his house. As for
if David's men were anywhere around, that is the whole
point. There is nothing--absolutely nothing--to indicate that
these men were with David. I have discussed in detail several
arguments to support this position, which I will summarize below.
1. From the moment David took flight from Saul, no reference to these men were made at any time, except in David's comments to Ahimelech.
2. Analysis of David's comments to Ahimelech shows that he concocted an elaborate lie to get help.
3. Analysis of the narrative style of the writer of 1 Samuel shows that before David's flight from Saul when men were with David, the writer specifically said so and then after men joined David at Adullam, the writer specifically mentioned men with David.
I will remind Turkel that he can easily settle this matter. All he has to do is quote the passage 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:
Expecting as Till does that these
few verses tell the whole of what happened is ---
Excuse me, but we have a break. I have just received a call from our old friend Hyper the Literalist, who is resting in his cell at the C. Dennis McKinsey School of Biblical Exegesis. He says he has something to share with Till. Go ahead, Hyper.
"Yeah! You bet. You tell Till he's missing the biggest bonehead error of all in that Gath episode. Dennis would never pass on an obvious absurdity like this one. Can you quote 1 Samuel 21:11 for me, please?"
Why, certainly -- "And the servants of Achish said unto him, Is not this David the king of the land? did they not sing one to another of him in dances, saying, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands?"
"Thanks. Now just look at that! That's just plain stupid. Till expects us to believe that the servants of Achish all came up to him at once and recited these exact words all at the same time like some kind of demented Greek tragedy chorus. I can't believe Till missed such an obvious absurdity. And besides that, when did Saul slay thousands, and David ten
thousands? He needs to step aside and let the real experts do the job."
Um, thank you, Hyper, we appreciate your input. Wouldn't Till say that that was just a literary technique, though?
"Technique, schmeqnique. What's wrong with factual reporting? Either Achish's men were some kind of demented choirboys, or the text is reporting in error. Calling it a ‘literary technique' is a bunch of flapdoodle. Tell Till he's ready for the pasture."
Um, yes. Thank you, Hyper, for that. I think Hyper has a point, albeit one that won't show if he combs his hair just right. It is fairly absurd to expect an obviously stylized "summary" story to provide the details we insist upon and anticipate an objection that we came up with because we can't think multi-dimensionally.
Till:
As I have pointed out
before, when Turkel is backed into a corner, he will resort to
amateurish attempts at humor to try to distract attention from his
predicament. Such amateurish "apologetics" doesn't
deserve a reply, but as I have said before, when I have my opponent
on the ropes, I try to keep him there, so I will go through whatever
"points" were intended in his hypothetical conversation
with Hyper the Literalist.
The Greek tragedy chorus: I didn't write the Bible; I just quote what it says and comment on it. This so-called Greek-tragedy chorus that Hyper pointed out is just another example of ineffective narration. Of course, all the servants of Achish couldn't have said in unison that Saul had killed his thousands but David had killed his ten thousands. Likewise, a scene that I quoted in an example above couldn't have happened either.
1 Samuel 11:2 And Nahash the Ammonite answered them, "On this condition I will make a covenant with you, that I may put out all your right eyes, and bring reproach on all Israel." 3Then the elders of Jabesh said to him, "Hold off for seven days, that we may send messengers to all the territory of Israel. And then, if there is no one to save us, we will come out to you."
What we have here is another example of agency. Just as an example quoted early said that a man built the city of Luz and another example said that David defeated the Philistines, so "the elders" of Jabesh said to Nahash what the text above attributed to them. This becomes a simple matter of applying the principle of literary interpretation that Turkel seems to be so ignorant of: the language of a text is to be interpreted literally unless there are compelling reasons to assign figurative meaning. Since it is so unlikely that one man could build an entire city or one man could defeat an entire army, these improbabilities become compelling reasons to assign the figurative meaning of agency to these statements. Likewise, since it is very unlikely that all the elders of Jabesh could have made in unison the statement attributed to them, that becomes a compelling reason to assign figurative meaning to the passage. One elder serving as a spokesman for the group delivered the message to Nahash the Ammonite, or, even more probable, a messenger was sent out to Nahash to deliver to him what the elders had decided. It is even probable that Nahash himself did not go into the city of Jabesh personally and tell the elders to surrender. This too was probably done through the agency of a messenger.
We have here an example of Turkel's trying to shift the subject away from my rebuttal arguments so that he can detract attention from his inability to answer them. I have not claimed, or even suggested, that unison quotations in the Bible constitute error, so I have no need to reply to a straw man that Turkel sets up to kick around. I will adapt from the land-promise debate one of Turkel's own comments and apply it to his distraction above.
I should note that this and the rest of the hypothetical phone call from Hyper the Literalist has nothing to do with the issue of Jesus's claim that men were with David, and so it is merely, as we predicted, a distraction, which should be treated as evidence of Turkel's lack of capability to address the subject at hand, and of a need to provide a distraction from the central issue, for no other purpose than to conceal incapability on the primary subject by changing the discussion to another subject never addressed in the original article.
The statement that I adapted this from should be familiar to Turkel, because he cut and pasted it into the land-promise debate more times than I could estimate. The only difference was that he resorted to this in situations where I had clearly presented to him arguments or rebuttals relevant to the land-promise issue, but his diversion above had nothing to do with any claim of error that I have personally made.
When did Saul kill thousands and David ten thousands? On this point, Hyper the Literalist and Turkel too--since Hyper is his creation--could use a simple lesson in basic hermeneutics. The lyrics of the song attributed to the servants of Achish were not something that the "inspired" writer of 1 Samuel wrote. The origin of these lyrics was attributed to women who went out of the city, singing and dancing, to meet David on his return from the slaughter of the Philistines (1 Sam. 18:6-7); hence, the "inspired" writer of 1 Samuel cannot be blamed for any inaccuracy in them, just as error in, say, the lie that David told Ahimelech cannot be blamed on the writer of this story. If Turkel would take a course in basic hermeneutics at Bam Bam Bible College, he would learn there that the doctrine of Bible inerrancy would claim that the account of what the women sang to David was inerrantly reported by the writer but what they sang wasn't necessarily inerrant, and the account of what David said to Ahimelech was inerrantly reported but what David said to Ahimelech wasn't necessarily inerrant.
I can't believe that Turkel doesn't know very elementary facts like this about a doctrine that he defends with such vigor. If Turkel thinks that the imaginary Hyper the Literalist "has a point," then Turkel's understanding of biblical hermeneutics is rather pathetic.
Anyway, what does any of this have to do with the issue of whether men were with David? Why doesn't Turkel just settle this matter once and for all by quoting the passage 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:
So then. We arrive
back at Adullam, and as yet we have no phone lines or fax machines
for Dave to alert the family. Till might come up with some other
creative and maybe anachronistic way for Dave to get the word out,
but we would remind him that whatever he does come up with is not in
the text, and he's going to have to posit a "how-it-could-have-been"
scenario himself to wiggle out of letting it just be Dave's men who
spread the word. Either that, or he'll need to use the McKinsey
Method to suggest that this is yet another counter-literalist [sic]
absurdity.
Till:
I replied to this
earlier, so I guess I'll just have to quote that reply here.
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.
I have never at any time said that implication is not a part of literary interpretation. If Turkel would take that hermeneutics course at Bam Bam Bible College, he would, in fact, learn that necessary implication is a widely recognized principle of hermeneutics (and literary interpretation). However, inferences must be derived from textual information that necessitates the inferences, and Turkel has yet to cite any textual information at all that would justify his "inference" (arrived at by "common sense" and "detective work") that men were with David during his flight. Likewise, he has cited nothing in the text that necessitates his supposition that David's parents could have learned about his presence at the cave of Adullam only if David had had men with him. So it is question time again for Turkel.
1. Is it your position that there would have been no way at all for word of David's arrival at the cave of Adullam to have gotten back to his family unless David had had men with him so that he could have sent one or more of them back with a message of his whereabouts?
2. If that is not your position, would you please quote the textual evidence that led you to determine that men were with David?
Better yet, Turk, why don't you just quote the passage where the accusers of Jesus's disciples could have read that David gave some of the showbread to "those who were with him"? You can put it after your ID marker below.
Turkel:
Turkel:
So much for a lesson
in inferential detective work. The chest closes with Till questioning
my designation of him as a Former Fundy: "...I'll remind Turkel
that I am not the one who believes in ancient superstitions about
talking animals, gods and angels who routinely chatted with people,
men walking unharmed through a fiery furnace, people rising from the
dead, and such like."
Well, that's a cluster of begged questions at their finest, to say nothing of the usual exaggeration (Routinely? Like, maybe 100 times in 1200 years is "routinely"?). The title remains alive. Till still has the same fundamentalist, one-dimensional mindset that got him in hot potatoes in the first place.
Till:
If Turkel really
believes that there were no more than 100 such incidents recorded in
the Bible over a period of 1200 years, then he really is ignorant of
the Bible. There would be at least 100 claims of Yahweh talking
to Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, etc. in just the book of
Genesis, without even taking into consider claims about the talking
serpent, the "translation" of Enoch, zapping the tongues
at Babel, the birth of Isaac to 90- and 100-year-old parents, the
angels' visit to lot, the raining down of fire and brimstone on
Sodom, the changing of Lot's wife into a pillar of salt, etc.,
etc., etc. If Turkel read ridiculous yarns like these in other
ancient documents, he would consider them amusingly quaint, but since
they are in the Bible, he thinks that they are the "inspired,
inerrant word of God."
And he has the audacity to accuse me of fundamentalism!
I have no doubt that fair-minded readers, who have had the patience to read all the way through our exchanges on this issue, will see that Turkel has presented nothing to crass speculations to find men in the story of David's flight and that he repeatedly skipped my arguments and rebuttals. On the other hand, I have patiently taken all of his "points"--without skipping any of them--and replied to them in detail. It wasn't stupidity on Turkel's part that caused his poor performance, and it wasn't genius on my part that enabled me to rebut his arguments in detail. It was simply that I had the facts on my side and Turkel didn't.
Will Turkel give up on this issue? I doubt it. He has too much pride. However, if he comes back, readers should expect more crass speculations, peppered with amateurish attempts at humor to hide his failures, because he just doesn't have any kind of textual evidence at all to support his claim that men were with David.
A mistake was
made in
Mark 2:26. That is the only reasonable conclusion to draw.
