Turkel:
From the last 1999 issue of TSR we have an item on Mark 2:25-28:
But he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him? How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the showbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.
Till:
Turkel has already misquoted me. I cited the NASV in my article, but he
has used the KJV, which I have retained, because
it doesn’t matter which version is used. There is still a
discrepancy in the text.
Turkel:
Farrell Till offers one of the familiar complaints here, but also two
new ones; let’s
go over these:
Farrell refers to this story in terms of “situational ethics” in that he supposes Jesus is justifying lawbreaking behavior on the Sabbath. Farrell only treats this briefly here, so we will as well:
Till:
As a matter of fact, I mentioned situational ethics only very briefly,
with little
more than passing comments, because the thesis of my article was
concerned with
an inconsistency in what a New Testament passage claimed that Jesus
said about an incident that happened during David's flight from Saul
and what the Old Testament said about the incident. If Turkel has an
interest in debating situational ethics, I'd be glad to affirm that
such ethics are taught in various biblical passages. All I would demand
is that he agree to post my defenses of this proposition on his
website. He will never agree to do this, and so the debate on
situational ethics is dead before it even got started.
Turkel:
What is at issue in this story is the weighing of a situation to say
whether it is
indeed a matter of immorality. The rabbis of the day also weighed
absolute needs
even as we do: Is it forbidden to rescue an animal from a hole on the
Sabbath?
Yes, because it was a matter of life and death for the animal.
Till:
Huh? Did Turkel even notice what he said here? He said, yes, it was
forbidden to rescue an animal from a hole on the
sabbath. He should be more attentive to what he writes. He surely meant
to say, no, it was not forbidden to rescue an
animal from a hole on the sabbath, because it was a matter of life and
death for
the animal. When someone cranks out the amount of hackwork that is
posted on Turkel’s
website, this kind of carelessness is only to be expected.
Turkel:
This is a matter of priority discussed by the rabbis and Jesus is far
from engaging
“situational ethics” as Farrell defines it (apparently, in terms of
justifying an immoral act) but rather has to do with a hierarchy of
morals,
which is not the same thing.
Till:
I doubt that Turkel even has an inkling of what I was talking about. My
work is directed toward the biblical fundamentalists in this country
who believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant “word of
God” and not to those who hold to the view that the Bible is perhaps
errant but is still in some way the “word of God” on a higher level.
The former almost always espouse the premise that morality is objective
(absolute), so to those of this mindset, there is no middle ground. An
act is either moral or immoral. I
was addressing my comment to them and not to those who are sensible
enough to
realize that morality is not an either/or, black-or-white issue.
As for the act that Jesus was defending with a situational view of ethics, he compared the disciples’ gleaning of grain on the sabbath day to David’s act of eating showbread from the tabernacle. I’ll let Turkel argue with his “personal savior,” but as this tale was written, Jesus allegedly said that it was “lawful” only for the priests to eat the showbread (Mark 2:26). Now was it lawful only for the priests to eat showbread? If Turkel wants to disagree with Jesus and say that it wasn’t unlawful for others besides priests to eat the showbread, I’ll let that be a matter between him and his “personal savior.” Perhaps he knows of some “ancient concept” or ANE customs that would make the words of Jesus not mean what they clearly said.
My position is that in terms of fundamentalist perceptions of what the Bible teaches, Jesus was right. Leviticus 24:5-9 said that the showbread was to be eaten by “Aaron and his descendants.”
Leviticus 24:5 You shall take choice flour, and bake twelve loaves of it; two-tenths of an ephah shall be in each loaf.
6 You shall place them in two rows, six in a row, on the table of pure gold.
7 You shall put pure frankincense with each row, to be a token offering for the bread, as an offering by fire to Yahweh.
8 Every sabbath day Aaron shall set them in order before Yahweh regularly as a commitment of the people of Israel, as a covenant forever.
9 They shall be for Aaron and his descendants, who shall eat them in a holy place, for they are most holy portions for him from the offerings by fire to Yahweh, a perpetual due.
This text said that the bread was to be eaten by Aaron and his descendants. Turkel would probably say that it did not say that the bread was to be eaten only by Aaron and his descendants, but there is a “law of exclusion” by which many fundamentalists think that divine commandments must be interpreted. Briefly stated, this principle of interpretation says that when a commandment stated what to do and who was to do it, this automatically excluded everything that it did not say. Thus, in stipulating who was to eat the showbread, everyone who was not stipulated was automatically excluded from those who were permitted to eat it. Turkel may say that this is a legalistic view, and I would agree, but I also have to agree that there are many indications in the Bible that this is a principle that Yahweh expected everyone to respect under penalty of severe consequences.
A good example is Leviticus 16:12, which stipulated how a priest was to burn incense to Yahweh, who seemed to enjoy the savor of such things.
16:12 He [the priest] shall take a censer full of coals of fire from the altar before Yahweh, and two handfuls of crushed sweet incense, and he shall bring it inside the curtain
13 and put the incense on the fire before Yahweh, that the cloud of the incense may cover the mercy seat that is upon the covenant, or he will die.
This text did not say that the priest should not use coals from a campfire or the flame of a candle or some other source of fire to light the censer; it said that it was to be lit with coals from the altar. Exclusionists, then, would argue that in saying what fire was to be used, Yahweh automatically excluded any other source of fire. That this is a proper interpretation, in keeping with the silliness of Yahwistic religion, is indicated by the fate of Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, who offered “unholy fire” in their censers and suffered incineration for their disobedience.
Leviticus 10:1 Now Aaron’s sons, Nadab and Abihu, each took his censer, put fire in it, and laid incense on it; and they offered unholy fire before Yahweh, such as he had not commanded them.
2 And fire came out from the presence of Yahweh and consumed them, and they died before Yahweh.
Yes, there are tales in the Old Testament that show that Yahweh was every bit as petty as exclusionists believe he was. Another example is Numbers 4:15, which designated that the sons of Kohath were to carry the ark and other vessels in the tabernacle when they were being transported. Centuries later, the ark was captured by Philistines, who experienced a string of bad luck, which they attributed to having the ark in their possession, so they returned it to the Israelites via an ox-drawn cart that stopped at a place called Bethshemesh. Here some men “looked into the ark of Yahweh,” and so Yahweh “smote” 57,000 of them with a “great slaughter” (1 Samuel 6:19). The ark was then left with a man named Abinadad, and some twenty or fifty years later--the biblical text is inconsistent on the time span--when David was trying to transport the ark to Jerusalem, the oxen pulling the cart stumbled.... Well, let’s just look at what the “inspired word of God” said about this.
2 Samuel 6:6 When they came to the threshing floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it.
7 The anger of Yahweh was kindled against Uzzah; and God struck him there because he reached out his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God.
Uzzah’s intentions were no doubt good. He wanted to protect a valuable religious relic from damage, but good intentions didn’t seem to count with Yahweh. He had said that the ark was to be transported by Kohathites, and Uzah didn't qualify. Hence, Yahweh struck him dead. Of course, it is doubtful that all of the 30,000 men David had with him at this time (2 Sam. 6:1-2) were all Kohathites, and it is equally doubtful that everyone who had been involved in carrying the ark from Abinadab’s house to the ox cart were Kohathites, but no sensible person has ever said that the Bible is consistent.
The point is that we have here another example of the pettiness of Yahweh, who routinely killed people for trivial infractions like picking up sticks on the sabbath or lighting a censer with fire from some source other than the altar or touching the ark with good intentions, so it is easy to see why serious fundamentalists would think that the so-called law of exclusion had to be respected. Jesus evidently thought so too, because he said that it was lawful only for priests to eat the showbread. However, in defending David’s eating of the showbread, he was clearly indicating a belief that there are times when special situations should take priority over the commandments of God.
Turkel:
On Abiathar see here
Till:
The word here is a link to an article that Turkel published in
response to Steven Carr’s
criticisms of the book of Mark, which in Turkel’s “cutsey” fashion he
entitled “Exhaust Fumes” or “Carr Repairs.” In his article Turkel
made the statement below about the Abiathar problem in Mark 2:26. I
didn’t discuss this problem at all, but since Turkel wagged it into a
reply to my article, in which he omitted probably
95% of what I had said in defense of my claim that Jesus had erred in
saying
that men were with David on the occasion in question, I will let
everyone see
Turkel’s “explanation” of the Abiathar problem, and then I will reply
to it.
Turkel [quoting Carr]:
Mark 2:26 - Abiathar should be Ahimelech. Matthew 12:1-8 does not
repeat the mistake.
Turkel [“explaining” the mistake]:
There is no “mistake” at all. The verse in Mark says that this event
took place
“in the time of” Abiathar, which is not the same thing as saying that
he was
the one involved in the episode in question. (Note that the “he” in
verse 26
refers to David, not Abiathar, as some contend. Those who complain
nevertheless,
saying that this would be as proper as saying that, for example, the
Gulf War
happened “in the days of George W. Bush,” are missing a key point: as
Casey
notes in Aramaic Sources of the Gospel of Mark, 151, there was
a very
clear reason for Jesus to mention Abiathar. Abiathar was a renowned
priest whose
name invokes the honoring of the law. Jesus mentions Abiathar in order
to say, in effect, “In the time of Abiathar, who was a real stickler
for the law, and we would expect the law to be followed, David and his
friends were allowed to do this; yet you say now that we can't do
something similar? Are you a better judge of the law than Abiathar
was?” Bringing Ab into the mix was actually a subtle slam against the
Pharisees' authority -- no “mistake” here expect by anachronistic
skeptics!)
Till:
This is typical of the kind of verbal gymnastics that biblicists will
resort to in
order to try to make the Bible not say what it clearly says. In Greek,
the text does not say that David went into the house of God “in the
time of Abiathar the high priest.” It says that he entered into the
house of God “[epi] Abiathar the high priest.”
The Greek word for “time” is not in the text, and epi was a
Greek preposition that had many uses, just as some English
prepositions, have many uses. A comparative examination of the way epi
was used in the New Testament
will show convincing evidence that its use in Mark 2:26 was intended to
convey the sense of to or into or before [in
the sense of “in the
presence of”]. Here are some examples of how epi was used in
other passages.
Matthew 10:17-18 Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; and you will be dragged before [epi] governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles.Matthew 28:14 “If this report gets to [epi] the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble.”
Mark 13:9 "You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before [epi] governors and kings as witnesses to them.”
Acts 23:30 When I was informed that there would be a plot against the man [the apostle Paul], I sent him to you at once, ordering his accusers also to state before [epi] you what they have against him.”
Acts 24:20-21 Or let these men here tell what crime they had found when I [Paul] stood before [epi] the council....
Acts 25:10 Paul answered: “I am now standing before [epi] Caesar’s court, where I ought to be tried.”
Acts 25:26 But I have nothing definite to write to our sovereign about him [Paul]. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before [epi] you, King Agrippa, so that, after we have examined him, I may have something to write....
1 Corinthians 6:1 When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before [epi] the unrighteous, instead of taking it before [epi] the saints?
1 Corinthians 6:5-6 Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another, but a believer goes to court against a believer--and before [epi] unbelievers at that?
2 Corinthians 7:14 For if I have been somewhat boastful about you to him, I was not disgraced; but just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting to [epi] Titus has proved true as well.
1 Timothy 6:13 In the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before [epi] Pontius Pilate made the good confession....
There are others that I could have quoted, but these are sufficient to show that epi in Greek was frequently used to convey the sense of “before” or being “in the presence of.” I selected the examples above, because most of them involved someone who was “epi” [before or in the presence of] someone of prominence or authority. Some of the other examples conveyed not just the sense of being before or in the presence of someone with authority but also presence in legal situations, as when the apostle Paul reprimanded the Corinthians for “go[ing] to law before [epi] the unrighteous.” The situation referred to in Mark 2:25-26, when Jesus said that David had entered the house of God “epi” the high priest, would have been a case of appearing before an authority figure, and Jesus mistakenly said that this authority figure was Abiathar the high priest. The statement could, in fact, be seen as a usage that conveyed both the sense of appearance before an authority figure and an appearance in a legal situation, because the high priest would have been someone familiar with the legalities of letting a nonpriest eat the showbread.
This explication of the passage is supported by some literal translations of the verse.
Concord Literal New Testament: And He said to them, “Did you never read what David does, when he had need and hungers, he and those with him? How he entered into the house of God under Abiathar the chief priest, and ate the show bread, which is not allowed to be eaten except by the priests, and he gives also to those who are with him?”
This literal translation was recognizing that at the time David entered the house of God it was “under” Abiathar the chief priest.
Young's Literal Translation: And he said to them, “Did ye never read what David did, when he had need and was hungry, he and those with him? How he went into the house of God (at Abiathar the chief priest,) and the loaves of the presentation did eat, which it is not lawful to eat, except to the priests, and he gave also to those who were with him?”
This literal translation used at to translate epi, which would convey the same sense as the word to. In other words, when David went into the house of God, he went in to Abiathar the chief priest.
It isn't at all unusual for some English translations to gloss over biblical errors and inconsistencies by translating them away, so those that have resorted to “in the days of” as a translation of epi have given inerrantists room to wiggle and squirm to find a way to explain the error in this text, but some versions have translated it honestly.
ASV: And he said to them, Did ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was hungry, he, and they that were with him? How he entered into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest, and ate the showbread....RSV: And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did, when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were with him: how he entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest....”
NRSV: And he said to them, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need of food? He entered the house of God, when Abiathar was high priest....”
Jerusalem Bible: And he replied, “Did you never read what David did in his time of need when he and his followers were hungry--how he went into the house of God when Abiathar was high priest....”
Good News Bible: Jesus answered, “Have you never read what David did that time when he needed something to eat? He and his men were hungry, so he went into the house of God and ate the bread offered to God. This happened when Abiathar was high priest.”
Amplified Bible: And he said to them, Have you never [even] read what David did when he was in need and was hungry, he and those who were accompanying him? How he went into the house of God when Abiathar was the high priest....
There are other translations that honestly recognized that Jesus was saying that David went into the presence of Abiathar the high priest or that this event happened when Abiathar was high priest--even the Jehovah's Witnesses got it right in the NWT --but the translations above combined with the analysis of the Greek word epi are sufficient to show that Turkel is just another biblicist willing to tie himself into verbal knots to keep from admitting that an error is in the Bible. I have looked to find some comparable example that would be parallel to the twist that Turkel tried to put on this passage in Mark, but I have been unable to find one.
What about Turkel's speculative interpretation of Mark 2:26? Did Jesus intentionally refer to Abiathar instead of Ahimelech so that he could, in effect, say to the critics of his disciples, "In the time of Abiathar, who was a real stickler for the law, and we would expect the law to be followed, David and his friends were allowed to do this; yet you say now that we can't do something similar? Are you a better judge of the law than Abiathar was?" It is noteworthy that Turkel made no attempt to show from Old Testament records of Abiathar's time that he was "a real stickler for the law" and quoted no textual evidence to support Casey's claim that Abiathar was "a renowned priest whose name invokes the honoring of the law." I suspect that Turkel made no such effort because he would have been hard pressed to find any support for this assertion, or, more likely, he wasn't even familiar with what the Old Testament said about Abiathar, so, like biblical inerrantists usually do, he saw in Casey's claim an explanation that sounded good, and so he pounced on it without bothering to check it for accuracy. However, there is nothing at all in the Old Testament to indicate that Abiathar was a "stickler for the law" any more than his father Ahimelech was. In fact, as I will soon show, Ahimelech was depicted much more favorably in this respect than was his son Abiathar.
Abiathar was first mentioned in 1 Samuel 22:20 after Saul had ordered a massacre of the priests at Nob as punishment for the help that Ahimelech had given to David during his flight. Abiathar escaped the massacre and fled to David, who, upon hearing about the massacre at Nob, felt responsible and urged Abiathar to remain with him where he would be safe (vs:22-23). Abiathar had fled to David with an "ephod" (1 Sam. 22:6), which was either an article of priestly clothing or some kind of solid object, like an idol. Passages like Exodus 28:4-5 and 1 Samuel 2:18 indicate that it was a linen garment, but other texts like Judges 8:27; 17:5 and 18:18 suggest that it was an idol. Since the text says that Abiathar fled to David with an ephod "in his hand," that would suggest that Abiathar's "ephod" was something like an idol or a talisman. Regardless of what it was, Abiathar took an ephod with him in his flight to David (1 Sam. 23:6), and thereafter David depended on Abiathar's "ephod" as an object of divination.
1 Samuel 23:9 When David learned that Saul was plotting evil against him, he said to the priest Abiathar, "Bring the ephod here." 10 David said, "O Yahweh, the God of Israel, your servant has heard that Saul seeks to come to Keilah, to destroy the city on my account. 11 And now, will Saul come down as your servant has heard? O Yahweh, the God of Israel, I beseech you, tell your servant." Yahweh said, "He will come down." 12 Then David said, "Will the men of Keilah surrender me and my men into the hand of Saul?" Yahweh said, "They will surrender you." 13 Then David and his men, who were about six hundred, set out and left Keilah; they wandered wherever they could go.
Another occasion when David consulted Abiathar's ephod is related in 1 Samuel 30:7.
30:7 David said to the priest Abiathar son of Ahimelech, "Bring me the ephod." So Abiathar brought the ephod to David. 8 David inquired of Yahweh, "Shall I pursue this band? Shall I overtake them?" He answered him, "Pursue; for you shall surely overtake and shall surely rescue."
In other words, David relied on Abiathar's ephod much in the same way that superstitious people today will consult tarot cards or palm readings. As I continue examining what the Old Testament said about this Abiathar, whom Turkel said was a "stickler for the law," I hope everyone will keep in mind that Turkel is a defender of such ancient religious superstitions as David's ephod consultations. That speaks volumes about the likeliness that Turkel has any special insights into the "real" meanings of biblical passages like Mark 2:26.
A listing of David's main officers and ministers included
Abiathar as one of his two priests (2 Sam. 20:25), but Abiathar is
actually mentioned infrequently in the records of David's reign as
king. The most prominence he was given in any extended passage about
David's reign was in 2 Samuel 15, which told of David's flight from
Jerusalem during the rebellion of his son Absalom. The priests Zadok
and Abiathar also left Jerusalem at this time, taking with them the ark
of the covenant (v:15). When they caught up with David, he told them to
take the ark back to Jerusalem, while he waited in the wilderness to
see what Yahweh had in store for him. A reference is made two chapters
later to the participation of Zadok and Abiathar in gathering
information about Absalom's military activities, which they then sent
on to David so that he and his followers could avoid a trap that
Absalom was planning (2 Sam. 17:15-20). Then two chapters later, a
reference was made to a message of reprimand that David sent to Zadok
and Abiathar for not
welcoming him back to Jerusalem after Absalom's rebellion had been
quelled. In all of these references to Abiathar, however, nothing at
all was ever said to indicate that Abiathar was a "stickler for the
law" as Turkel claimed in his purely speculative interpretation of Mark
2:26. In fact, nothing was ever said about any kind of interpretation
of the Mosaic law that Abiathar made. If anything, the references to
Abiathar suggest that he had violated the law by using an ephod that
seemed to be some kind of object of adoration, which would have been
contrary to commands against idolatry.
The final references to Abiathar are found in the context of David's lingering illness on his deathbed, at which time he decreed that the throne was to be passed to his son Solomon. Oddly enough, Abiathar, after his long relationship as David's priest, favored Adonijah, Solomon's half-brother, in the power struggle for the throne. Solomon, of course, won the struggle, after which he banished Abiathar to Anathoth (2 Kings 2:26-27). At the time, Solomon said that Abiathar was worthy of death for having aided Adonijah in his power grab, but because of Abiathar's previous relationship with David, Solomon spared his life (v:26).
That Abiathar sided with Adonijah in the power struggle with Solomon is quite telling, because Solomon was Yahweh's choice to succeed David.
2 Samuel 12:24 Then David consoled his wife Bathsheba, and went to her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and he named him Solomon. Yahweh loved him, 25 and sent a message by the prophet Nathan; so he named him Jedidiah, because of Yahweh.1 Chronicles 22::6 Then he called for his son Solomon and charged him to build a house for Yahweh, the God of Israel. 7 David said to Solomon, "My son, I had planned to build a house to the name of Yahweh my God. 8 But the word of Yahweh came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name, because you have shed so much blood in my sight on the earth. 9 See, a son shall be born to you; he shall be a man of peace. I will give him peace from all his enemies on every side; for his name shall be Solomon, and I will give peace and quiet to Israel in his days. 10 He shall build a house for my name. He shall be a son to me, and I will be a father to him, and I will establish his royal throne in Israel forever.'"
The upshot of all this is that Abiathar, who had an "ephod" that put him into some kind of direct communication with Yahweh sided with Adonijah in the power struggle against Solomon, whom Yahweh loved and who was Yahweh's choice to succeed David. So much for Turkel's claim that Abiathar was "a stickler for the law," whose name invoked the honoring of the law.
In all of the references to Abiathar, there is nothing--absolutely nothing--to justify Turkel's claim that Abiathar was known as a "stickler for the law." To the contrary, his life ended in disgrace, and his father Ahimelech was the one who was depicted as a priest with high integrity. When Doeg the Edomite, who had seen Ahimelech give bread and Goliath's sword to David, reported the incident, Saul summoned Ahimelech and the priests of Nob before him.
1 Samuel 22:11 The king sent for the priest Ahimelech son of Ahitub and for all his father's house, the priests who were at Nob; and all of them came to the king. 12 Saul said, "Listen now, son of Ahitub." He answered, "Here I am, my lord." 13 Saul said to him, "Why have you conspired against me, you and the son of Jesse, by giving him bread and a sword, and by inquiring of God for him, so that he has risen against me, to lie in wait, as he is doing today?" 14 Then Ahimelech answered the king, "Who among all your servants is so faithful as David? He is the king's son-in-law, and is quick to do your bidding, and is honored in your house. 15 Is today the first time that I have inquired of God for him? By no means! Do not let the king impute anything to his servant or to any member of my father's house; for your servant has known nothing of all this, much or little." 16 The king said, "You shall surely die, Ahimelech, you and all your father's house." 17 The king said to the guard who stood around him, "Turn and kill the priests of Yahweh, because their hand also is with David; they knew that he fled, and did not disclose it to me." But the servants of the king would not raise their hand to attack the priests of Yahweh. 18 Then the king said to Doeg, "You, Doeg, turn and attack the priests." Doeg the Edomite turned and attacked the priests; on that day he killed eighty-five who wore the linen ephod. 19 Nob, the city of the priests, he put to the sword; men and women, children and infants, oxen, donkeys, and sheep, he put to the sword. 20 But one of the sons of Ahimelech son of Ahitub, named Abiathar, escaped and fled after David.
The verses emphasized in bold print don't prove anything about Ahimelech's view of the law of Moses, but they do show that he was a person of high integrity, who was willing to reprimand a king who he thought was wrong. That is more than was ever said about Abiathar, who aligned himself with David in order to save his life and then later proved himself to be an opportunist, who with Joab, David's leading general, plotted against Yahweh's choice of a successor to David as David lay dying (1 Kings 1:7). Abiathar died in banishment, whereas his father Ahimelech died for principles he believed in.
I will say again that there is nothing--absolutely nothing--to justify the purely arbitrary spin that Turkel has put on Mark 2:26. His claim was that Jesus intentionally associated David's act of eating the showbread with "the time of Abiathar" in order to take a "subtle slam" at Pharasaic legalism. Here again is what Turkel said.
Jesus mentions Abiathar in order to say, in effect, "In the time of Abiathar, who was a real stickler for the law, and we would expect the law to be followed, David and his friends were allowed to do this; yet you say now that we can't do something similar? Are you a better judge of the law than Abiathar was?"
I defy Turkel to produce textual evidence from the Old Testament to support his claim that Abiathar was considered "a real stickler for the law" and was "a renowed priest whose name invoke[d] honoring the law." The fact that Turkel would fabricate an untenable "explanation" like this shows that he is just another biblical inerrantist who thinks that he can say just anything and that it will adequately explain problems as glaring as the one regarding Ahimelech/Abiathar. The tragedy is that many people who read articles on his website are so poorly informed in biblical matters that they will credulously accept arbitrary "explanations" like this and then continue on their merry way down the road of religious gullibility without pausing even a moment to examine critically his "solutions" to Bible discrepancies. It's a good thing that Turkel didn't give warranties with his "Carr Repairs," or he would owe Steven Carr a refund.
At this point, Turkel finally turned to the thesis of my
article, which was that Jesus's claim that men were with David when he
obtained showbread from "the house of God" is contrary to the Old
Testament record of that event. I will reply to his "response" to this
in Part Two.
