[Editor's Note: Until this point in his highly touted "replies" to my article "The Paper Shortage," Turkel's "answers" to the problems that I had identified in his scroll-scarcity "explanation" of biblical ambiguities had relied almost entirely on "sound-bite" comments inserted into my original article, a practice that in many of his articles, he has previously condemned when skeptics do it. Finally, Turkel began to put together more than sarcastic sentence-fragment and one- or two-line sound bites, but readers will see that even in his longer comments, he still failed to address my rebuttal arguments, choosing instead to wave them aside with sarcastic comments, and wound up skipping more than he tried to answer. Those who have read all of my articles in this rebuttal series will have no difficulty seeing that Turkel's paper-shortage apologetics is a failed cavilous argument that he is too proud to admit was presented to his readers before he had critically analyzed it to see if it could withstand scrutiny.]

---

Verbatim repetition of long passages: The 38 verses in Isaiah 37 are the same as the 37 verses in 2 Kings 19. They differ in the number of verses only because verses 15 and 16 in Isaiah 37 were combined into just one verse in 2 Kings 19. Now if scroll materials were so scarce and "expensive," why didn't Yahweh tell either "Isaiah" or the author(s) of 2 Kings that one of them would not have to use precious scroll space to record this passage because another "inspired" writer had already recorded it? Does Turkel ever wonder about things like this? Did he even know that these identical biblical passages exist? (Duh, yeah. Did X even know my answer to this existed when he wrote this, and had for months?) Well there are many things that I don't know, but I do know that Turkel didn't bother to show us that his answer to this already existed when I wrote it. I have to wonder how he could have already answered something that I hadn't even written yet. I know that he considers himself a top, if not the top, biblical apologist, but answering something before it has been written is a bit phenomenal for even a narcissist. Turkel's article that I am now replying to was supposed to be a reply to my article "The Paper Shortage," where I made the statement about verbatim repetitions just quoted, so if he had already answered this, he must have done so in "Paper Pushers," which I replied to point by point in "The Paper Trail Resumes - Part One." I have looked through the entirety of Turkel's "Paper Pushers," and the only thing remotely resembling a reply to this was quoted and replied to point by point here in "The Paper Trail Resumes - Part One." Those who go to this section of my original article "The Paper Shortage" will see that Turkel in "quoting" from it truncated a lengthy section to just six lines in his "reply." He left the impression with his readers that I had cited only two examples of verbatim repetition in the Bible when in reality this section identified by either quotation or citation over a dozen examples of either verbatim or near verbatim repetitions in the Old Testament. If those examples aren't sufficient to blow Turkel's paper-shortage apologetics to kingdom come, readers can find some thirty more examples of verbatim and near-verbatim repetitions and twice-told tales in this section of "The Paper Shortage." The fact that so much repetition exists in both the Old and the New Testaments is sufficient to show to any reasonable person that Turkel's paper-shortage apologetics is completely without merit. (What? Does Skeptic X expect a compiler of Isaiah's words and deeds to leave out 2 Kings 19? What's he going to do, write in a note, "see other scroll"?) As I said in this section of "The Paper Trail Resumes - Part One," I love it when Turkel sticks his foot into his mouth. Those who review the section of my article just linked to will see that in replying to this very same statement that Turkel had made in another article, I showed that Old Testament writers often did the very thing that Turkel facetiously tried to indicate that they could not have done. In this section of the article just linked to, I quoted 17 examples of where writers, including the author(s) of Kings, told readers that additional information on whomever they were writing about could be found in such works as "Annals of the Kings of Israel" or "Annals of the Kings of Judah" or "Visions of Iddo the Seer," and so on. In trying to joke his way around a problem, as he often tries to do, Turkel stuck a foot into his mouth, and I then shoved it down his throat. The examples that I cited and explicated in the section linked to immediately above shows that the writer of Kings didn't have to repeat verbatim what Isaiah had written in chapter 37 of his book; he could have simply said, as he did in several other places, "Hezekiah's deliverance from the hand of the Assyrians has been recorded in the book of Isaiah." Let Turkel tell us why he could not have done here what he had done all those other times. (The compiler of Isaiah's oracles and of the Kings annals had differing purposes;) Oh, is that so? What were their "differing purposes" that would not have allowed the writer of Kings to do what he had done in several other places and refer his readers to other contemporary works that had reported events about the kings he was writing about? To be more specific, exactly why did the "differing purpose" of the author of Kings allow him to say, "As for the other events of Ahab's reign, including all he did, the palace he built and inlaid with ivory, and the cities he fortified, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Israel?" (1 Kings 22:39) but would not allow him to tell his readers that Hezekiah's deliverance from the Assyrians had been written in the book of Isaiah? Exactly why did the "differing purpose of the author of Kings allow him to say, "As for all the other events of Asa's reign, all his achievements, all he did and the cities he built, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah?" (1 Kings 15:23) but would not allow him to tell his readers that Yahweh's deliverance of Hezekiah from the Assyrians had been written in the book of Isaiah? Turkel rarely bothers to explain assertions like his "differing-purposes" assertion quoted above. He just throws them out, knowing that his sycophantic choir members will gush with admiration and chime in chorus, "Differing purposes! Well, that explains it!" If he derives satisfaction from pulling the wool over the eyes of sheep who can't reason any more critically than that, his apologetic standards can't be very high. (there is nothing to prevent such double usage with respect to available supplies.) Why not? If scroll materials were so scarce and expensive in those days, why wouldn't "double usage" have been a waste of resources? Why could Old Testament writers not have been under any "constraints" to omit long sections of information that had been recorded in other books but New Testament writers like "John" couldn't even report an earthquake and resurrection of many saints because space was just too precious to waste on details that other New Testament writers had already recorded? Turkel doesn't explain, and he won't explain, because he can't explain it. (And in any case...neither Isaiah nor the Kings writer, that we know of, were constrained by the limits of funding) And as far as we can know, "John" wasn't either. In this section of "The Paper Trail Resumes - Part One," I asked Turkel some questions about the length of "John"s" scroll, which I doubt that he will ever try to answer. For the convenience of readers, I will copy them below.

1. What was the length of the scroll on which "John" wrote the fourth gospel?

2. How much did this scroll cost "John"?

3. Did "John" use every inch of this scroll?

4. Did he have any space at all left over when he wrote the final verse of this gospel?

5. If he did have space left at the end, how long was that space? Two inches? One inch? A half inch? How much?

6. If "John" had, say, a half inch left at the end, would that have been enough space for him to squeeze in, "When Jesus died, a great earthquake shook open the tombs of many saints, who went into the city, after his resurrection, and appeared to many, and the centurion seeing the earthquake and what took place said, 'Surely, this was the son of God'"?

7. If "John's" scroll didn't even have an extra half inch to squeeze this information in, how much extra would it have cost him to have bought a scroll a half inch longer or to buy a half inch of scroll material to tack onto the end?

In all of my replies to Turkel's attempts to save face from his paper-shortage fiasco, I have emphasized that when he says that paper was just too scarce for New Testament writers to give full coverage of what they were reporting, he is making a claim that he couldn't possibly know is true. Unless he can answer the questions above, his paper-shortage quibble will remain satisfactorily impeached. (and of needing to keep in mind the production of multiple copies across an empire, for people from all backgrounds and nations.) This quibble has already been hammered flatter than a cow patty here and here (where I cited several examples of repetition in the gospels) and here in this article, where I took a damaging admission that Turkel had made and dumped it into his lap to dismantle his own paper-shortage quibble.

Turkel has said that making one copy of a manuscript like Isaiah's would "be no burden under such circumstances [of scarcity and expense]," and as I said in replying to that comment, if making one copy of a scroll would have been "no burden" to the author, then making one copy of it would have been no burden to whoever wanted to make it, and making one copy of the copy would likewise have been no burden to the scribe copying it, and so on. I further noted that organized religious groups, like the colony at Qumran, could have shared the expense of making copies of scrolls that they considered important, so Turkel's quibble that the expense of making "multiple copies" put restraints on the writers, which forced them to leave out much material that they would have otherwise included, falls apart when analyzed in the light of his own admission that making only one copy would have put "no burden" on the scribe.

So much for Turkel's "multiple-copies" quibble.

(X blithely assumes that the conditions and purposes of the Gospels were 100% the same as that for Kings and Isaiah,) I do? Just when did I assume that? I think I have a background in biblical knowledge and principles of literary interpretation--from having taught college literature courses for 30 years--that would enable me to see that the authors of books of ancient Israelite "history" would not have had the same purpose as those who wrote "biographies" of a person who very likely never existed. What I have assumed is this: If there is any merit at all to Turkel's claim that the scarcity and cost of scroll materials in biblical times required writers to omit much that would have otherwise been recorded, then those constraints would have worked on everyone equally regardless of what their writing purposes may have been. A simple analogy should enable even Turkel to see this. If A and B both undertake to build houses that will comfortably accommodate their families, which both consist of 10 members, but A is rich and B is poor, then B will necessarily have to cut corners and build a house that will be less elaborate than A's. Turkel may be inclined here to shout gleefully, "Exactly, financial restraints would determine how big the houses would be," but before he gets too excited, he should stop for a moment to realize that he has no way of knowing what financial resources were available to "John" compared to, say, the author of Kings. When Turkel says, as he has often implied, that the author of Kings had the support of royal treasuries but "John" had no rich benefactor to subsidize his expenses, he is making a claim that he cannot substantiate. How much money was available to "John" when he undertook to write his gospel? Unless he can answer that with definitive proof, his quibble crumbles as most of his quibbles usually do. (which is a remarkable act of density.) I wonder if that density is any thicker than Turkel's when he asserts that "John," a writer of unknown financial means whose purpose was to record "signs" that would make readers believe that Jesus was the Christ (John 20:30-31), didn't have enough room on his scroll of unknown length and cost, to include the "signs" that had caused Roman pagans to declare that Jesus was surely the son of God. (The same answer applies to examples he gives between Psalms and Kings,) And so the same rebuttals of that "answer" also apply. I have stated and restated them so often that I don't need to rehash them here. (and Jeremiah and Kings,) Whoa! Just a minute. Turkel's quibble has been that Isaiah and the author of Kings had the support of royal treasuries, which could have supplied them with as much scroll materials as they wanted, but in "The Paper Trail Resumes - Part One," I showed here that Jeremiah constantly preached denunciations of the kings of Judah and was in turn opposed by them. Jeremiah 22:1-30 contained a denunciation of Judean kings in which Jehoahaz [Shallum], Jehoiakim, and Jehoiachin were all mentioned by name and sternly denounced. When Jehoiakim destroyed a scroll that Jeremiah had dictated to Baruch, Jeremiah prophesied that his unburied body would be cast outside the gate of Jerusalem and left exposed to the heat of day and the cold of night (Jer. 36:30-31). Jeremiah was imprisoned by king Zedekiah for his opposition to royal policy toward Babylon (Jer. 37:3-15), and so on. Does Turkel expect any reasonable person to believe that a prophet so hated by the kings of Judah would have been financially supported by those very kings. Let Turkel explain to us just why a king who would destroy one of Jeremiah's scrolls would have given him financial support to write scrolls. Turkel's biblical ignorance is nothing short of astounding for someone who claims to be an "apologist," and that is why he makes so many unsupported assertions that directly conflict with what the Bible says. He very likely couldn't summarize the content of the book of Jeremiah if his life depended on it, for if he did know what was in this book he would never have used Jeremiah as an example of an old Testament writer who enjoyed the scribal support of kings. (so we skip that and get to where X,) Ah, yes, a rebuttal article from Turkel just wouldn't be a rebuttal article from Turkel unless he skipped significant parts of what he is supposed to be "answering." Why don't we just take a look at what he skipped. Ah, yes, here it is in this section of "The Paper Shortage."

Why would writers inspired by an omniscient, omnipotent deity have wasted scarce, precious scroll materials to repeat verbatim up to 48 verses of what other inspired authors had written? If such repetition as this was so often "inspired," it does seem that the omni-max one could have inspired "John" to waste just a little bit of space to write 19:17 in a way that would have been in agreement with the synoptic accounts of the same event. Just look how easy that would have been.

So no wonder Turkel wanted to skip this. It posed to him the question he has been reluctant to address throughout this "debate": Why would an omniscient, omnipotent deity, who had so often allowed Old Testament writers to waste space repeating unimportant matters like those noticed earlier, have not directed "John" to take just a little space to add the role of Simon of Cyrene to John 19:17) so that controversies like the one that prompted all of these articles could have been avoided? I guess Turkel skipped this, because he wanted to spare himself the embarrassment of having nothing to say about it except his old question-begging stock-in-trade: Till is upset because God didn't descend to kiss his patoot. (after his usual "I'm the expert" fashion,) Hmmm, this comment reminds me of someone I know in the Orlando, Florida, area--appropriately close to Disney World--who constantly brags about knowing ancient Near Eastern customs, oral traditions, idioms, "nuances," and so on, even though he has problems with the grammar and nuances of his native English. (suggests that John could have written this to cover X's own niggling ignorance:) Oh, not just my "niggling ignorance" but the "niggling ignorance" of many others who have renounced belief in the Bible because of its inconsistencies, contradictions, absurdities, failed prophecies, ambiguities, etc., which any rational person who isn't shackled by ignorance--like someone I could mention--thinks should not be in a book that an omniscient, omnipotent one "inspired" in order to reveal his eternal "plan of salvation" to the human race, which pissed him off for not constantly bowing and scraping to kiss his patoot. But let's look now at just how simple it would have been for "John" to have supplied the missing information about Simon of Cyrene.

Then Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus, who carried the cross by himself until he could no longer bear it, and then they compelled Simon of Cyrene to carry it on to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha.

There are only 53 words in this rewritten version, compared to the 38 in "John's" account.

(15 words, huh? The answer to this sort of selfishness was already given in the article X addresses:) Selfishness? Just what is selfish about thinking that an omniscient, omnipotent deity should have been able to "inspire" clear, coherent accounts of his revelation of a "plan of salvation" that would enable mankind to be "saved" from eternal punishment? ("But it's just a sentence! Surely Mark or Luke or John could have fit it in." Sure! At the expense of some other part of their account being shorter. Bear in mind that this little blurb about QS) Well, with just a little thought a skilled writer--which would eliminate Turkel, who gives little thought to what he writes--could have said it in even fewer than 53 words so that there would have been no "expense" to some other part of his gospel. How about this?

Then Pilate handed him over to them to be crucified. So they took Jesus, who carried the cross by himself until he tired; then they compelled Simon of Cyrene to carry it on to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha.

This conveys all that "John" said in his version plus the role of Simon of Cyrene in carrying the cross, and contains only 48 words or just 10 more than "John's" version, which omitted the reference to Simon. We could even do better than this and have the first sentence read: "Pilate handed him over to be crucified." Readers in the "high-context" society that Turkel so often talks about would have understood that if Pilate handed Jesus over to be crucified, he would have handed him over "then," i. e., after the clamor of the crowd to crucify him, and that he would have handed him over "to them," the ones demanding his crucifixion. Now we are left with a version containing only 45 words, which are just seven more than in "John's" version. Does Turkel expect reasonable people to believe that "John" couldn't have squeezed in just seven more words here without going into backruptcy or completely wrecking his narrative plan that he had decided upon after taking notes prior to beginning his gospel? However, since "John" was writing to people living in a "high-context" society, he could have made this verse even leaner. He could have said in the first verse that "Pilate handed him over," and his "high-context" readers would have understood that Pilate had handed Jesus over not just to those demanding his crucifixion but had handed him over for what the crowd was demanding, i. e., crucifixion. This would have eliminated six words that were unnecessary for "high-context" readers to understand what had happened. Also, it wouldn't have been necessary to say that Jesus carried the cross "by himself," because if he carried it, "high-context" readers, accustomed to seeing criminals carry their crosses, would have understood that he had carried it himself, and, likewise, it wouldn't have been necessary to say that Jesus carried the cross "until he tired," because Turkel said here that "it is well-established that it was the custom of the Romans to have the prisoner carry his own cross, and that they would have no compunction about forcing bystanders to do whatever they pleased." Hence, if Jesus stopped carrying his cross, "high-context" readers, who had often seen condemned ones collapse under the weight of their crosses, would have understood that he had stopped carrying the cross because he was physically unable to continue carrying it. Likewise, it wouldn't have been necessary to say that the Romans had forced Simon to carry the cross, for if all that Turkel has told us is so--and surely he wouldn't tell us something that isn't so--then the "high-context" readers in "John's" day would have understood that if Simon of Cyrene had carried the cross part of the way, then he had been forced by the Romans to do so. Therefore, if all of the details in this passage that would have been unnecessary in a "high-context" society had been omitted, it could have been written like this.

Pilate handed him over. So they took Jesus, who carried the cross, until Simon of Cyrene carried it on to what is called The Place of the Skull, which in Hebrew is called Golgotha.

Now we have a text of only 33 words, five fewer than in "John's" version, which didn't include any reference at all to Simon of Cyrene. We could even make the text leaner by eliminating the phrase "what is called," because if the text said only that Simon of Cyrene had carried the cross to "the Place of the Skull," the "high-context" readers of that time would have understood that this was what the place was called. I have had a bit of fun with this reductio ad absurdum of Turkel's paper-shortage quibble, but there was a serious intent behind it. As I showed here in "Crimes by Speculation - Part Three," the author of John was far from being a model of brevity. I showed how a hundred unnecessary words could have been eliminated from just the first 10 verses of this gospel, which would have been far more than he would have needed to report both the role of Simon of Cyrene in the crucifixion and the miraculous events of the day that had caused the pagan Romans to declare that Jesus was surely the son of God. This paper-shortage quibble of Turkel is absurdity gone to seed. ([and I would add here, about the cross] is part of the very end of Jesus' life, which is already very crowded at the end of the scroll.) But I thought that "John" had taken notes and carefully planned his narrative before he had begun writing it. He must have been a poor planner if his notes had directed him to leave out of his gospel--being written to make readers believe that Jesus was "the Christ" (John 20:30-31)--the very "signs" that had caused Roman pagans to declare that Jesus was surely the son of God (Matt. 27:51-54). (We do not know how Mark originally ended,) Readers can go to "Problems in the Ending of the Gospel of Mark" to see a detailed reply to Turkel's take on the ending of the gospel of Mark. (and we see that John supplements the Synoptics;) No, we see that Turkel asserts that "John" was written to supplement the synoptics. More specifically, we see that Turkel claims that "John" was written to supplement the gospel of Mark, but there are some problems with either assertion. If "John" were written to supplement Mark or the synoptics in general, why did he repeat material that was in those other gospels? He told about the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:1-14), which was also reported by Matthew and Mark and Luke. Did "John" think that he could supplement the synoptics by relating a tale that had been recorded in all three of them? "John" also told the tale of the "triumphant entry" (John 12:12-15), but this story had also been told in all three synoptics (Matt. 21:4-9; Mark 11:7-10; Luke 19:35-38). Did "John" think that an effective way to supplement the synoptics would be to tell yet another story that was in all three of them? "John" also told of Jesus's prediction that Peter would deny him three times (John 13:36-38), but so did all three synoptic writers (Matt. 26:31-35; Mark 14:29-31; Luke 22:33-34). "John" later told the story of Peter's actual denial (John 18:15-17,25-27), but so did all three synoptic writers (Matt. 26:69-75; Mark 14:66-69; Luke 22:55-57). Turkel's idea of "supplementing the synoptics," then, must be that one supplements other works by reporting the same things. I could cite other examples of synoptic repetitions in the gospel of John, but these are sufficient to show that Turkel's "supplement" assertion is without merit. (but that extra sentence for Luke (assuming he knew about the QS) means something else has to go.) Uh, why would a person chosen by an omni-max deity and "inspired" by him to know "all truth" (John 16:13) not have known about the QS [earthquake and resurrection of the "many saints"]? (How about, "And they gave him a piece of a broiled fish, and of an honeycomb"? Well, what about the need to stress the physicality of Jesus' resurrection body (very important in a Greco-Roman world that did not like the concept of resurrection)? Ho, hum, I replied to this too here in "Crimes by Speculation - Part Three." For the convenience of readers, I will quote that reply.

When Jesus ate the fish and honeycomb, did this convince any nonbelievers that he was surely the son of God? At any rate, if this detail was so important to "the Greco-Roman world," why didn't Mark, who, many scholars believe, wrote his gospel in Rome, include it in his gospel? Luke omitted reference to the feeding of the four thousand, which Mark and "Matthew" both included, so if he could have omitted this, why didn't he omit his account of the feeding of the five thousand (Luke 9:11-17)? This omission would have given him plenty of space to tell about the earthquake and the resurrection of the saints, who went into the city and appeared to "many."

When all is said and done, there is just no plausible explanation for why such amazing events as these would not have been included in gospels whose writers surely wanted them to influence readers to believe in Jesus.

In the reply to Turkel linked to above, I should have commented on his claim that there was a need to "stress the physicality of Jesus' resurrection [sic] body," so I will suggest here that Turkel take this claim up with the apostle Paul, who obviously taught that the spiritual body of Jesus--and not his physical body--had been resurrected. Notice the underlined parts below.

1 Corinthians 15:35 But someone will ask, "How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?" ³⁶ Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. ³⁷ And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. ³⁸ But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. ³⁹ Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. ⁴⁰ There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. ⁴¹ There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory. ⁴² So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. ⁴³ It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. ⁴⁴ It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body.

Too much space would be needed to explicate this passage to show that in Paul's time there was a belief that Jesus was resurrected only spiritually rather than bodily, a concept that evolved later in Christianity, so I will ask readers to consider the conflict that the belief in a bodily resurrection presents with what was said in the seed analogy above in verse 37. The "body to be" is not what is sown, but if Jesus was resurrected bodily, as Turkel no doubt believes, then he would have to say that when Jesus was buried--or rather put into a tomb--the body to be was also the body that was "planted." Proponents of the bodily resurrection will also have to explain why the apostle Paul went to such lengths to "prove" that there is a spiritual body if his purpose in this passage was to prove that Jesus had been resurrected bodily. Those who want to see what I consider a logical defense of the spiritual-resurrection view should read the first speech of Dan Barker in his debate with Michael Horner at Northern Iowa University. Turkel, of course, holds Barker in about as much esteem as he holds me, but if Turkel can quote and cite Glenn Miller as often as he does, I can cite Barker. The only difference is that I am not citing Barker as a final, definitive voice in this matter, but Turkel will usually cite Miller with a "see-here" link and no further comment, as if Miller's word is definitive in the matter. I have cited Barker's position because I am fully prepared to defend the view that he presented in the debate linked to above, if Turkel would care to take issue with me on it. The only demand I will make is that Turkel agree to post all exchanges written by both of us on his website and leave them there. Needless to say, I will agree, without reservation, to post them on The Skeptical Review Online. (How about cutting out the repentance of the one thief (23:40)?) Why cut out anything? I have shown over and over and over and over that Turkel's paper-shortage quibble is completely without merit as a satisfactory explanation of ambiguity and confusion in the Bible that resulted from the omission of important information. Even he has admitted that making one copy would have put no burden on the writer of an ancient scroll to which I replied by pointing out that this admission had gutted his paper-shortage quibble, because if making only one copy would not have put a burden on the writer, then making one copy of the original would not have burdened the copyist of the copy or those who later made copies of the copies. Furthermore, I have pointed out that Turkel does not know and cannot know if the scarcity and cost of scroll materials put any financial strains on Luke or "Matthew" or any other biblical writer. I have previously asked him questions about the scrolls that were used by "John" and "Mark" and what financial resources they had available when they were writing, so I guess it is now time to ask him the same questions about Luke.

1. What was the length of the scroll on which Luke wrote his gospel?

2. How much did this scroll cost Luke?

3. Did Luke use every inch of this scroll?

4. Did he have any space at all left over when he wrote the final verse of this gospel?

5. If he did have space left at the end, how long was that space? Two inches? One inch? a half inch? How much?

6. If Luke had, say, a half inch left at the end, would that have been enough space for him to squeeze in, "When Jesus died, a great earthquake shook open the tombs of many saints, who went into the city, after his resurrection, and appeared to many, and the centurion seeing the earthquake and what took place said, 'Surely, this was the son of God'"?

7. If Luke's scroll didn't even have an extra half inch to squeeze this information in, how much extra would it have cost him to have bought a scroll a half inch longer or to buy a half inch of scroll material to tack onto the end?

Until Turkel can answer these questions, there is no way that he can reasonably claim that he knows that Luke or "John" or whoever had to leave out important information because they were confronting a scroll-space crisis. Here in "Crimes of Speculation - Part Three," I answered this very question that Turkel had asked about the repentance of the thief.

Why didn't Luke just lay it onto the Holy Spirit and say, "For Pete's sake, why don't you find me another inch or two of scroll material, so that I can sew it on and have enough space to tell about the amazing events that caused the Roman soldiers to declare that Jesus was the son of God! Is this any way to run a divinely inspired library?"

Now if Turkel will just answer my questions above about the length of Luke's scroll and the price he had to pay for it, we can consider whether he has a point or not. If he admits that he doesn't have the answers to these questions, we will know that he has no point at all but only an argument from silence.

What were the questions I had asked "above" in this article? They are the same ones that I just quoted above about the cost and scarcity Luke may have confronted in writing his gospel. As I have said and then repeated and repeated and repeated, if Turkel cannot tell us specifically the length and cost of the scrolls used by the gospel writers and the cost they would have incurred in lengthening them, his paper-shortage apologetics will remain an absurd quibble. (Why do that for your sake?) Well, just forget about my sake. What about all of the human beings facing eternal damnation from the time that Mark and "John" and Luke and whoever wrote their manuscripts? What about them? Couldn't the omni-max deity who did so much to get the Israelites from Egypt to the "promised land" and claims to want all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4) have put forth just a little of his supernatural effort to make sure that his "inspired" ones would have had enough scroll space to tell complete accounts of what they had been chosen to write. Read my lips, Turkel: your paper-shortage apologetics is ridiculous. Get over it. (Sorry, X's selfish ignorance and confusion is not the plumb line for what writers could or should have done.) No, the plumb line should have been what would have been more likely to bring about the salvation of the most people, which Turkel's god presumably wants. Instead of presenting him as a benevolent deity who is genuinely interested in a "fallen mankind," Turkel makes him an utter nincompoop who knew no more about how to present his "gospel" in effective form than the average high-school student knows about writing essays. Turkel can have his god. No reasonable person would be attracted to him. Turkel should also keep in mind that snide comments about "God's" not descending to kiss my patoot do nothing but beg the questions of divine existence and its involvement in the writing of the Bible, but they do nothing to answer the problems that I have identified. There is only one more line in [my] rewritten version [of John 19:17], which, if Turkel's traditional interpretation of John 19:17 is right, would have removed all doubt about what had happened. Does he seriously expect reasonable people to believe that "John" just wasn't able to be this explicit because of "compositional constraints" caused by the scarcity and cost of scroll materials in those days? (Yes we do, X, and your standing by the roadside gasping with incredulity isn't an actual response.) Well, saying that my standing by the roadside gasping with incredulity isn't an actual response is certainly not a response either. It is a flagrant evasion of problems in Turkel's paper-shortage apologetics that I have identified. That aside, I have made plenty of responses to Turkel's baseless assertion that a shortage of scroll materials forced biblical writers at times to be ambiguous and confusing. Until he can answer all of the questions I have asked about the length and cost of scrolls used by the gospel writers and their financial standings when they were writing their books, reasonable people will recognize his paper-shortage apologetics as pure baloney no matter how he may slice it. If Turkel's speculation is true, then that doesn't say very much about the importance that his god puts on human souls. The "inspired word" claims that "God" wants all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:3-4), but according to Turkel, "God" didn't want this if it was going to necessitate the use of space on costly and scarce scroll materials. (As already noted, wanting people to come to the knowledge of the truth does not require demanding that God wipe our rear ends just because we're too lazy to do it, or looking for excuses.) So once again I must tell the expert in ancient Near Eastern customs, languages, traditions, idioms, "nuances," etc., etc., etc., that saying such as this does nothing but beg the questions of "God's" existence and his involvement in the writing of the Bible. If Turkel identified problems that he sees in the Qur'an, how would he respond if a Muslim should say to him, "Wanting people to come to the knowledge of Qur'anic truth does not require demanding that Allah wipe our rear ends just because we're too lazy to do it"? I suppose he would say, "Well, you know, I never thought of it that way." Yeah, right! He would be all over his Muslim opponent like green on grass if such a "response" as this were presented to legitimate questions about Qur'anic problems, so I am going to be frank here and call a spade a spade. Turkel's "kissing-patoots" and "wiping-butts" replies to legitimate questions about biblical problems are moronic, asinine, idiotic, and downright stupid. They do nothing but show his complete inability to give sensible answers to biblical discrepancies and glaring holes in his apologetic methods. He may call this an ad-hominem attack if he wishes, but, with apologies to William Dean Howells, calling a spade a spade instead of an agricultural implement becomes necessary at times to communicate what needs to be said. (Secular historians, as noted in the link above, have no problem figuring out or accepting this kind of thing.) Well, actually, I have never read where another "secular historian" presented the paper-shortage quibble that Turkel has become the undisputed champion of. If there are "secular historians" who ride this hobby horse with the zeal that Turkel does, I suggest that he enlist their help in answering the questions that I have asked above and in earlier articles in this series about the length of the scrolls used by New Testament writers, their costs, and the financial standings of each gospel writer. Until Turkel can find a "secular historian" who knows how long, say, "John's" scroll was, how much it cost him, how much space was left on it when the gospel was finished, or examples of New Testament writers who said that the scarcity and cost of scrolls at times necessitated the omission of important details in their narratives, etc., what they may think about this issue will be of no more merit than Turkel's. (A know-far-less like X who refuses to so much as break a book open and think a thought has about as much excuse as the brat with his hand in the cookie jar.) Making more accusations that he knows nothing about! Isn't this just typical of Turkel? If he could see the books piled on my desk and the others stacked on the floor in my office from lack of space on shelves already filled with books--a messiness that my wife often complains about--I suppose he would still say that I "refuse so much as [to] break open a book." Anyway, Turkel has put his finger on a major problem in his style of "apologetics." He thinks that if he can find a book or article that agrees with whatever doctrinal position he is trying to sell on a given day, all he has to do is quote it to prove that he is right. The poor guy probably is never going to learn that finding books and articles that agree with a particular religious position is as easy as spending a few minutes in a library or on the internet. Don't any of Turkel's choir members ever take the time to analyze critically his harebrained "explanations" of biblical discrepancies? (Doesn't X ever get out of his anachronizing, one-dimensional, bigoted, crackpot-scholarship mode?) Harebrained means "foolish, silly, ridiculous," etc., and I have piled evidence on top of evidence to show that Turkel's paper-shortage quibble is indeed silly and ridiculous. Now if he would just cite evidence that would prove that I am "one-dimensional" and "bigoted" and that my scholarship is "crackpot" and "anachronizing," I will consider it. Until he does present evidence to support his evaluations of my "mode," I will consider them just angry insults that he has hurled at an opponent who took him to task and whipped his ass on an issue that is emotionally important to him. ("Critically" here means "evaluating it in English in terms of modernity". [sic]) Oh, yeah, I forgot, Turkel is an expert in ancient Near Eastern customs, traditions, languages, idioms, and "nuances," isn't he? Yeah, right! He couldn't read a passage in Hebrew without lexicographical help if his life depended on it, and he routinely has problems with grammar, syntax, and "nuances" in his own native language, but his choir members lap up this kind of rhetoric from him. "Hey," they say, "just look at what our man knows compared to Till, who barely understands English."

Before and after repetition: There is even an example of a story being told twice in different books, so that one who accepts the biblical inerrancy doctrine must believe that the incident happened both before Joshua died and then after he was dead. This story was told first in the middle of a chapter where Joshua was dividing the conquered lands among the tribes of Israel. (Duh, no, not at all. Let's have a look first.) Everyone watch closely now to see how Bobby, who constantly accuses me of "anachronizing," is apparently unable to recognize an obvious example of anachoronism in the Bible. Well, let me rephrase that. He recognizes the anachronism all right; he just can't admit that it is there, because to do so would be an admission of discrepancy in the Bible. Observe how I mopped the floor with him on this issue.

Joshua 15:15 Then he [Caleb] went up from there to the inhabitants of Debir (formerly the name of Debir was Kirjath Sepher). ¹⁶ And Caleb said, "He who attacks Kirjath Sepher and takes it, to him I will give Achsah my daughter as wife." ¹⁷ So Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it; and he gave him Achsah his daughter as wife. ¹⁸ Now it was so, when she came to him, that she persuaded him to ask her father for a field. So she dismounted from her donkey, and Caleb said to her, "What do you wish?" ¹⁹ She answered, "Give me a blessing; since you have given me land in the South, give me also springs of water." So he gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.

At this time, Joshua was still alive, because he was the one in charge of the distribution of the conquered lands. (Oops, not quite the case. More in a moment about how X displays his ignorance.) Yes, very much the case. Please keep watching carefully to see how Turkel gets skinned alive on this one, not so much from "his ignorance" but from a flagrant dishonesty that he must resort to in order to defend his emotionally important belief that the Bible is the "inerrant word of God." The death of Joshua was recorded at the very end of this book (Josh. 24:29-31), and the next book (Judges) began with a reminder that Joshua was dead.

Judges 1:1 Now after the death of Joshua it came to pass that the children of Israel asked Yahweh, saying, "Who shall be first to go up for us against the Canaanites to fight against them?" ² And Yahweh said, "Judah shall go up. Indeed I have delivered the land into his hand."

So at the time of Othniel's conquest of Debir [Kirjath Sepher], Joshua was still alive, but presumably the incident also happened after he was dead.

Judges 1:11 From there they went against the inhabitants of Debir. (The name of Debir was formerly Kirjath Sepher.) ¹² Then Caleb said, "Whoever attacks Kirjath Sepher and takes it, to him I will give my daughter Achsah as wife." ¹³ And Othniel the son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took it; so he gave him his daughter Achsah as wife. ¹⁴ Now it happened, when she came to him, that she urged him to ask her father for a field. And she dismounted from her donkey, and Caleb said to her, "What do you wish?" ¹⁵ So she said to him, "Give me a blessing; since you have given me land in the South, give me also springs of water." And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the lower springs.

I don't know what track Turkel may take to try to explain how Joshua could have been both alive and dead when this incident happened, but some biblicists will argue that because the book of Judges opened with a notice that Joshua was dead wouldn't necessarily mean that everything recorded in this book happened after Joshua's death. (Not like the one X addresses, which I will delete.) This is so, well, so Turkelish. All he could say above was, "Oops, not quite the case," with a promise to say "more" about this later, and then he didn't even try to reply to the section that followed his "oops." He just followed through true to form by deleting another section that he couldn't satisfactorily answer. I suspect that he realized that if he didn't cut out a big chunk of what he wasn't going to answer, even some of his choir members might begin to wonder why he was skipping so much. Let's just take a look at what he deleted. Ah, here it is. His reason for the deletion should be obvious to everyone who sees what he cut out, which I am reinserting below.

[I don't know what track Turkel may take to try to explain how Joshua could have been both alive and dead when this incident happened, but some biblicists will argue that because the book of Judges opened with a notice that Joshua was dead wouldn't necessarily mean that everything recorded in this book happened after Joshua's death.] I won't dwell long on this quibble [that everything in Judges 1 didn't necessarily happen after Joshua was dead], because the needless repetition of the tale is the point most pertinent to the thesis of this article, but a few comments would be in order. If one will go back and read Judges 1:1, he will see that it says that "after the death of Joshua," the Israelites asked Yahweh (as they routinely did in those days) who should go up first against the Canaanites, and Yahweh's answer was that Judah should go up. The verses that follow then recorded exploits of the tribe of Judah in its conquest after Yahweh had told Judah to go up, and verses 11 through 15, which told the tale of Caleb's gift of "the upper and lower springs" to his daughter, is right in the middle of the writer's account of the cities and lands that the Judahites conquered, so clearly the author of Judges was saying that the incident involving Caleb's daughter had happened at that time. However, if one will check Joshua 15, he will see that this entire chapter is concerned with land that Joshua distributed to the tribes of Israel, and "the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families," was reported in the first 20 verses of Joshua's land distribution. The insertion of the story of Caleb's gift to his daughter in this section surely meant that the author of Joshua understood that the incident had happened while Joshua was still alive. Hence, biblical inerrantists are left with the problem of explaining how the same incident could have happened while Joshua was both alive and dead.

Never underestimate the imagination of determined biblicists. They will always find some way to "explain" a problem like this, but for the sake of argument, let's just suppose that there is some way to explain it. Turkel, the "paper-shortage" apologist, would still be left with the problem of explaining why, in a time when the scarcity and expense of scroll materials necessitated "compositional constraints," Yahweh would have "inspired" his chosen writers to waste space telling a rather insignificant tale like this twice. The American author Nathaniel Hawthorne wrote a collection of short stories entitled Twice-Told Tales. Maybe Yahweh inspired him to write it.

So there is the part that Turkel deleted, and anyone who can see through a ladder can see why he left it out. It presented clear textual evidence that the writer of Judges was claiming that Caleb gave the gift of the springs to his daughter after Joshua was dead, whereas the writer of Joshua had claimed that this gift was given to her before Joshua's death. Now take a look at how Turkel "answered" this. (However, here's the answer, which is miles out of X's head. The story in question about Caleb originally existed as a fully separate unit of oral tradition. It was incorporated into both places because of its topical relevance, and in Joshua it is dischronologized, a "flash forward" if you will, completing the topic.) And Turkel's evidence to support his "dischronologized-narrative" straw, which has become one of his most popular quibbles to grab when he needs to explain an obvious anachronism, is what? As we continue, notice that he gave no supporting evidence; he simply asserted it. (This was normal ancient historical reportage procedure; chronology was not the automatic way of following things; it requires no "imagination" or "determination" because it draws an answer from what has been observed to be a typical practice, that fits in as well with the primarily oral nature of communication.) Does anyone see in all of this abstract double-talk any literary analysis to support Bobby's claim that the version of this tale related in Joshua was a "flash forward"? No, it just isn't there. Let's assume that everything he said was true and that nonchronological narration was a "normal ancient historical reportage procedure." Surely even he won't argue that it was the only reporting procedure that was used by ancient writers, and chronological sequence was certainly used in biblical narration. I recall when Turkel tried to use his "dischronologized-narrative" quibble to explain a discrepancy in the book of Luke, and I had to point out to him here that Luke had said to Theophilus in the introduction to his gospel that he intended to write it in consecutive order, so rather than just throwing out an assertion about "dischronologized narration," Turkel needs to put some of that expertise in research that he brags about so often into studying the fallacy of argumentation by assertion. If he understood what it is, maybe he wouldn't commit it so often. The account in Joshua of Caleb's gift to his daughter was not a "flash forward" just because Turkel asserts that it is in order to get out from between the rock and the hard place that he finds himself in. If it was a "flash forward," then there will be textual evidence to support that claim. Where is Turkel's textual support for his assertion? He didn't give any, but everyone watch closely now as I skin him alive on this and then nail his hide to the wall, because there is plenty of textual evidence to show that the writer of Joshua thought that this story had happened in Joshua's lifetime. I have already given that evidence in this section of "Matt Green's Land-Promise Doubts." This is a direct link to a detailed analysis of Turkel's "flash-forward" assertion quoted above, but for the convenience of readers, I am going to quote that entire section. It is lengthy, but literary analysis requires the usage of space. I think that reasonable readers will see that I ripped Turkel's "flash-forward" quibble into so many pieces that he will never be able to piece it together again.

(B)efore I reply to the rest of what Matt Green apparently thinks is a satisfactory reply that Turkel made to my identification of an X and ~X [P and ~P] contradiction in Joshua, I will take the time to reply to Turkel's claim that the twice-told account of Caleb's gift to his daughter is nothing more than a case of "dischronologized narrative." In this section of "The Paper Shortage," I cited the two accounts of Caleb's gift to his daughter as examples that were inconsistent with Turkel's claims that much of the ambiguity in biblical texts was due to a shortage of writing materials that wouldn't allow writers to give complete details.

I don't know what track Turkel may take to try to explain how Joshua could have been both alive and dead when this incident happened, but some biblicists will argue that because the book of Judges opened with a notice that Joshua was dead wouldn't necessarily mean that everything recorded in this book happened after Joshua's death.

Well, it seems that I hit the nail on the head, because what Turkel said to "explain" how this event could have happened both before and after Joshua died amounts to the same thing, because he fell back on his famous "dischronologized-narrative" quibble. Almost every time that Turkel confronts a chronological discrepancy, he will resort to this quibble. I, of course, am X in his "explanation" quoted below from "The Intelligence Shortage," because Turkel will not mention me by name in his "replies" to me. Notice that his opening sentence refers to deleting one of my examples. He is good at deleting that which is detrimental to whatever quibble he will use to "explain" a discrepancy.

Not like the one X addresses, which I will delete. However, here's the answer, which is miles out of X's head. The story in question about Caleb originally existed as a fully separate unit of oral tradition. It was incorporated into both places because of its topical relevance, and in Joshua it is dischronologized, a "flash forward" if you will, completing the topic. This was normal ancient historical reportage procedure; chronology was not the automatic way of following things; it requires no "imagination" or "determination" because it draws an answer from what has been observed to be a typical practice, that fits in as well with the primarily oral nature of communication. But back to the main issue: X wastes several lines asking again why lack of paper didn't stop this repetition, and the answer is the same: Joshua and Judges are and were not of the same nature and purpose as the Gospels. Is this so hard?

The last paragraph above is a direct quotation of what he cut and pasted into his article that I am now replying to point by point, so please notice carefully how I ripped his "flash-forward" assertion to pieces below.

Turkel's "explanation" may require no "imagination" or "determination," but it does require textual evidence, which Turkel didn't even attempt to give. Having taught both college writing and literature for 30 years, I certainly know that narrative writing isn't always sequentially chronological, but I also know that when events in a narrative are not related in the order of their occurrence, skilled writers will use transitional markers, like before this, prior to, earlier, afterwards, at that time, and such like, to signal to their readers that the sequence of events is shifting to another time frame. I could cite several biblical passages to show that the writers were aware of the need to use such chronological markers to assist their readers in understanding when the events in their narrative had happened, but since the example that Turkel says was "dischronologized" is in the book of Joshua, I am going to back up to chapter 14 to show that the tale about Caleb's gift to his daughter had, according to the book of Joshua, happened during the lifetime of Joshua. I will highlight in bold print the transitional markers that signal the time that the events were happening. The language of the KJV is archaic and at times hard to follow, so I will quote from the NIV, which Turkel will frequently appeal to when he is confronted with a discrepancy in the KJV. If I could link directly to the places where Turkel made these appeals on his website, I would do so, but those who want to check this for themselves can go to "modern versions" and also to "modern translations" to get listings of articles where Turkel appealed to "modern versions" and "modern translations." You will see that most often "modern versions/translations" meant the NIV, even though the NIV is just one version.

Now here is an analysis of the narrative in Joshua, which eventually leads up to the tale of Caleb's gift to his daughter. I will interrupt the narrative at times to point out what the emphasized transitional markers show about time sequences and also to discuss other matters that date this story to the time of Joshua.

Joshua 14:1 Now these are the areas the Israelites received as an inheritance in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, Joshua son of Nun and the heads of the tribal clans of Israel allotted to them. ² Their inheritances were assigned by lot to the nine-and-a-half tribes, as Yahweh had commanded through Moses. ³ Moses had granted the two-and-a-half tribes their inheritance east of the Jordan but had not granted the Levites an inheritance among the rest, ⁴ for the sons of Joseph had become two tribes--Manasseh and Ephraim. The Levites received no share of the land but only towns to live in, with pasturelands for their flocks and herds. ⁵ So the Israelites divided the land, just as Yahweh had commanded Moses.

Notice that Joshua was one of the officials who presided at the distribution of the captured lands, and, of course, he could not have done this unless he was still living. The emphasized references to what Yahweh had said to Moses, who was dead at this time, tell us that the narrative jumped from the present time into the past. Determining all of this was not at all difficult, and I will show in the continuation of the narratives that other transitional devices make it just as easy to tell that the story of Caleb's gift to his daughter happened during the lifetime of Joshua.

Turkel will probably read this sometime, so I have a bit of advice for him. If he will take notes on this section, he just might learn how to determine time sequences in biblical narratives so that he won't make a fool of himself again by claiming that a story was "dischronologized" when, as we will see, it was anachronized in Judges rather than "dischronologized."

14:6 Now the men of Judah approached Joshua at Gilgal, and Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him [Joshua], "You know what Yahweh said to Moses the man of God at Kadesh Barnea about you and me. ⁷ I was forty years old when Moses the servant of Yahweh sent me from Kadesh Barnea to explore the land. And I brought him back a report according to my convictions, ⁸ but my brothers who went up with me made the hearts of the people melt with fear. I, however, followed Yahweh my God wholeheartedly. ⁹ So on that day Moses swore to me, 'The land on which your feet have walked will be your inheritance and that of your children forever, because you have followed Yahweh my God wholeheartedly.' ¹⁰ "Now then, just as Yahweh promised, he has kept me alive for forty-five years since the time he said this to Moses, while Israel moved about in the desert. So here I am today, eighty-five years old! ¹¹ I am still as strong today as the day Moses sent me out; I'm just as vigorous to go out to battle now as I was then. ¹² Now give me this hill country that Yahweh promised me that day. You yourself heard then that the Anakites were there and their cities were large and fortified, but, Yahweh helping me, I will drive them out just as he said."

Caleb's references to his age at the time that Moses had sent him from Kadesh Barnea to explore the land and his subsequent reference to his age at that time tell us that 45 years had passed from the time that Moses had sent the spies into Canaan (Num. 13:1-16) until the time that Joshua began to distribute the conquered land. Caleb's age at this time is important, because after the land had been distributed in chapters 14 through 22, chapter 23 began with a reference to Joshua's age.

Joshua 23:1 After a long time had passed and Yahweh had given Israel rest from all their enemies around them, Joshua, by then old and well advanced in years, ² summoned all Israel--their elders, leaders, judges and officials--and said to them: "I am old and well advanced in years. ³ You yourselves have seen everything Yahweh your God has done to all these nations for your sake; it was Yahweh your God who fought for you. ⁴ Remember how I have allotted as an inheritance for your tribes all the land of the nations that remain--the nations I conquered--between the Jordan and the Great Sea in the west.

I quoted the first verse above in my presentation of the P and ~P argument to show that Joshua 13:1, which said that the Israelites still had "much land" to conquer, had necessarily preceded Joshua 21:43-45, which said that Yahweh had given the Israelites all of the land that Yahweh had promised them, because Joshua was "old and advanced in age" in 13:1, but in 21:43-45, he was in the middle of distributing the land, according to what Yahweh [snicker, snicker] had commanded, and then after the land had been distributed, as the text quoted immediately above shows, "a long time" passed and "by then" Joshua had become old and full of years. This would meant that the "long time" had passed after Caleb's dialogue with Joshua quoted above, so if Caleb was 85 at that time, he must have been positively ancient in Judges 1:12-15, where the tale of Caleb's gift to his daughter is told again--after the death of Joshua at the age of 110 (Josh. 24:29)--in the time frame that Turkel claims is when it all actually happened. Since it wasn't anything for people to live way past the age of a hundred in those days [snicker, snicker], Turkel will no doubt claim that Caleb could have easily lived that long, but both versions of this yarn imply that Caleb had participated in the conquest of the land that he gave to his daughter.

None of this is inclusive yet, but as I continue my analysis of the narrative in Joshua, we will see clear indications that the writer was saying that all of this had happened while Joshua was still alive. As the narrative continues, keep in mind that Joshua is the one distributing the land.

Joshua 14:13 Then Joshua blessed Caleb son of Jephunneh and gave him Hebron as his inheritance. ¹⁴ So Hebron has belonged to Caleb son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite ever since, because he followed Yahweh, the God of Israel, wholeheartedly. ¹⁵ (Hebron used to be called Kiriath Arba after Arba, who was the greatest man among the Anakites.) Then the land had rest from war.

Joshua could not have blessed Caleb unless Joshua was alive at that time, so Hebron was given to Caleb before Joshua died. I emphasized then in the last sentence, because it is a transitional marker that tells us that after Joshua had made this distribution "the land had rest from war," but if the land had had rest from war, the conquests must have been complete at that time, and I show below that the reference to the land having "rest from the war" meant that the conquest had been complete. Notice carefully that part when you come to it.

The narrative continued into the next chapter.

Joshua 15:1 The allotment for the tribe of Judah, clan by clan, extended down to the territory of Edom, to the Desert of Zin in the extreme south. ² Their southern boundary started from the bay at the southern end of the Salt Sea, ³ crossed south of Scorpion Pass, continued on to Zin and went over to the south of Kadesh Barnea. Then it ran past Hezron up to Addar and curved around to Karka. ⁴ It then passed along to Azmon and joined the Wadi of Egypt, ending at the sea. This is their southern boundary. ⁵ The eastern boundary is the Salt Sea as far as the mouth of the Jordan. The northern boundary started from the bay of the sea at the mouth of the Jordan, ⁶ went up to Beth Hoglah and continued north of Beth Arabah to the Stone of Bohan son of Reuben. ⁷ The boundary then went up to Debir from the Valley of Achor and turned north to Gilgal, which faces the Pass of Adummim south of the gorge. It continued along to the waters of En Shemesh and came out at En Rogel. ⁸ Then it ran up the Valley of Ben Hinnom along the southern slope of the Jebusite city (that is, Jerusalem). From there it climbed to the top of the hill west of the Hinnom Valley at the northern end of the Valley of Rephaim. ⁹ From the hilltop the boundary headed toward the spring of the waters of Nephtoah, came out at the towns of Mount Ephron and went down toward Baalah (that is, Kiriath Jearim). ¹⁰ Then it curved westward from Baalah to Mount Seir, ran along the northern slope of Mount Jearim (that is, Kesalon), continued down to Beth Shemesh and crossed to Timnah. ¹¹ It went to the northern slope of Ekron, turned toward Shikkeron, passed along to Mount Baalah and reached Jabneel. The boundary ended at the sea. ¹² The western boundary is the coastline of the Great Sea. These are the boundaries around the people of Judah by their clans.

There isn't much of any significance in this part of the narrative, but it does raise a question. Why did "God" waste so much space in his "inspired word" for minutiae like this? Of all the beneficial things that an omniscient, omnipotent deity could have told his creation, such as the existence of germs and bacteria, which could be protected against by boiling water before drinking it, he passed these over and chose instead to tell the world intricate details about plans for the construction of a tent and its furnishings (Ex. 25-31) or endless genealogies about who begot whom (Gen. 5,10-11) or detailed descriptions of the boundaries of land that was distributed to tribes after it had been conquered. Before Turkel chimes his favorite refrain here about my being upset because God didn't kiss my "patoot," I will remind him that besides begging the question of the existence of a "God" who was involved in ancient tribal affairs, this does not give a satisfactory explanation of why the "inspired word" of an omniscient, omnipotent deity would have focused so much on insignificant matters to the neglect of those far more important.

As for the part of the narrative quoted above, if these boundaries were designated when Joshua gave this land to the tribe of Judah, then we can get an idea of how extensive the conquest allegedly was at that time. It extended from the Salt [Dead] Sea on the east to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea on the west; hence, the claim was made that Israel had received the land from the eastern and western boundaries that Yahweh had designated in his land promises. In my complete rebuttal of Skippy's quibbles in Part Five of my land-promise replies, I explicated Joshua 12 verse by verse to locate all of the places allegedly conquered to show that they extended from the extreme south of the promised land to the extreme north and from the Salt [Dead] Sea on the east to the Great [Mediterranean] Sea on the west, so this chapter clearly was showing that the last verse of the previous chapter was correct when it claimed that Joshua "took the whole land according to all that Yahweh spoke to Moses." Turkel's claim, then, that Gaza was Philistine territory, which the Israelites had not conquered but had only gone up to, does not withstand textual scrutiny, but let's go now finally to the tale of Caleb's land gift to his daughter as it was told in the book of Joshua.

Joshua 15:13 In accordance with the Lord's command to him, Joshua gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh a portion in Judah--Kiriath Arba, that is, Hebron. (Arba was the forefather of Anak.) ¹⁴ From Hebron Caleb drove out the three Anakites--Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai--descendants of Anak. ¹⁵ From there he marched against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher).

Now notice that for the second time, the narrative in Joshua claims that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb, and notice too that this part of the narrative claims that Caleb drove out the three Anakites living there, but the version of this tale in Judges 1, which was dated after the death of Joshua, claims that "Judah" drove the Anakites out of Hebron.

Judges 1:9 After that, the men of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negev and the western foothills. ¹⁰ They advanced against the Canaanites living in Hebron (formerly called Kiriath Arba) and defeated Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai. ¹¹ From there they advanced against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher).

So in the Joshua version, Caleb got credit for conquering Hebron and driving out the Anakites, but in the Judges version, "the men of Judah" received the credit. This is really no great problem, because Caleb was a member of the tribe of Judah, so if he had participated in the taking of Hebron, he surely would have had help from tribal members; hence, it could rightly be said that Caleb drove the Anakim out of Hebron and that "the men of Judah" drove them out. The problem for Turkel is that he is claiming that the version of this tale in Joshua 15 is "dischronologized" and that the time when it really happened was after the death of Joshua as recorded in Judges 1, but this position cannot be harmonized with Joshua 10:36-37, which says that Hebron was captured and everyone in it "utterly destroyed" during the lifetime of Joshua.

10:36 And Joshua went up from Eglon, and all Israel with him, unto Hebron; and they fought against it: ³⁷ And they took it, and smote it with the edge of the sword, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof, and all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining, according to all that he had done to Eglon; but destroyed it utterly, and all the souls that were therein.

So if Hebron was utterly destroyed during the lifetime of Joshua and all of the people living in it "utterly destroyed," how could it be that Caleb, after Joshua was dead, had advanced against Hebron and defeated the people living there? That is a little problem that Turkel will have to explain if he hopes to make his "dischronologized-narrative" quibble explain how the same story happened twice in exactly the same way.

The problems for Turkel seem to keep multiplying, because the last verse quoted above from Judges 1 says that "they" [the people of Judah] advanced against Debir, which had formerly been called Kiriath Sepher, at which time Caleb, as we will notice soon, promised to give his daughter in marriage to whoever captured it, but Joshua 10:38-39 claims that Debir was utterly destroyed and the population massacred during the lifetime of Joshua.

10:38 And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to Debir; and fought against it: ³⁹ And he took it, and the king thereof, and all the cities thereof; and they smote them with the edge of the sword, and utterly destroyed all the souls that were therein; he left none remaining: as he had done to Hebron, so he did to Debir, and to the king thereof; as he had done also to Libnah, and to her king.

So for Turkel to make his "dischronologized-narrative" explanation work, he will have to explain not only how Hebron could have risen from the total ruins of Joshua's destruction to become a power that Caleb would have to defeat again, but he will also have to explain how the same could have happened to Debir. Does Turkel seriously expect reasonable people to think that the Israelites would have utterly destroyed these two cities and then sat on their hands and let Canaanites return to them and rebuild them so that Caleb and "the men of Judah" had to go back and retake them after Joshua was dead? Probably so, because when a biblical inerrantist is confronted with a glaring inconsistency, no explanation is too ridiculous for him to peddle to his gullible sycophants.

For the coup de grace, let's look at the rest of this tale about Caleb's gift to his daughter. For transitional purposes, I will include the introductory verses that were quoted above.

Joshua 15:13 In accordance with Yahweh's command to him, Joshua gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh a portion in Judah--Kiriath Arba, that is, Hebron. (Arba was the forefather of Anak.) ¹⁴ From Hebron Caleb drove out the three Anakites--Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai--descendants of Anak. ¹⁵ From there he marched against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher). ¹⁶ And Caleb said, "I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath Sepher." ¹⁷ Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's brother, took it; so Caleb gave his daughter Acsah to him in marriage. ¹⁸ One day when she came to Othniel, she urged him to ask her father for a field. When she got off her donkey, Caleb asked her, "What can I do for you?" ¹⁹ She replied, "Do me a special favor. Since you have given me land in the Negev, give me also springs of water." So Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs.

Notice what this text says. It first says that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb and then goes on to say that Caleb drove the three Anakites out of Hebron, and then it goes to say that he [Caleb] marched against the people living in Debir. Then it says that Caleb offered his daughter in marriage to the man who attacked and captured Kiriath Sepher [Debir]. Where are the transitional time markers that give even the slightest reason to think that the writer meant for readers to understand that Caleb led his men up to Debir and then "after a long time had passed" and Joshua was dead, Caleb said that he would give his daughter in marriage to the man who would attack and capture Kiriath Sepher [Debir]? Those transitional markers aren't there, so the spin that Turkel has tried to put onto this passage is just too ridiculous to warrant any serious consideration.

To see that this is obviously another twice-told tale, like the others that I identified in "The Paper Shortage," let's look at the two versions together.

Joshua 15:13 In accordance with Yahweh's command to him, Joshua gave to Caleb son of Jephunneh a portion in Judah--Kiriath Arba, that is, Hebron. (Arba was the forefather of Anak.) ¹⁴ From Hebron Caleb drove out the three Anakites--Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai--descendants of Anak. ¹⁵ From there he marched against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher). ¹⁶ And Caleb said, "I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath Sepher." ¹⁷ Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's brother, took it; so Caleb gave his daughter Acsah to him in marriage. ¹⁸ One day when she came to Othniel, she urged him to ask her father for a field. When she got off her donkey, Caleb asked her, "What can I do for you?" ¹⁹ She replied, "Do me a special favor. Since you have given me land in the Negev, give me also springs of water." So Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs.

Judges 1:9 After that, the men of Judah went down to fight against the Canaanites living in the hill country, the Negev and the western foothills. ¹⁰ They advanced against the Canaanites living in Hebron (formerly called Kiriath Arba) and defeated Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai. ¹¹ From there they advanced against the people living in Debir (formerly called Kiriath Sepher). ¹² And Caleb said, "I will give my daughter Acsah in marriage to the man who attacks and captures Kiriath Sepher." ¹³ Othniel son of Kenaz, Caleb's younger brother, took it; so Caleb gave his daughter Acsah to him in marriage. ¹⁴ One day when she came to Othniel, she urged him to ask her father for a field. When she got off her donkey, Caleb asked her, "What can I do for you?" ¹⁵ She replied, "Do me a special favor. Since you have given me land in the Negev, give me also springs of water." Then Caleb gave her the upper and lower springs.

In both accounts, Hebron is captured and then an advancement is made on Debir, at which time Caleb made his offer to give his daughter in marriage to the man who attacked and captured Debir. There are no transitional markers anywhere that even remotely imply that these events were not related in a chronological sequence. The only difference in them is that the first version was told as if it had happened during Joshua's lifetime, whereas the other was told as if it had happened after Joshua was dead. As I pointed out above, the claims in Joshua 10 that both Hebron and Debir were captured and utterly destroyed in the lifetime of Joshua makes Turkel's "dischronologized-narrative" claim impossible for reasonable people to swallow.

Another problem for Turkel's "dischronologized" scenario is that the passage above quoted from Judges 1 says that "the men of Judah," led presumably by Caleb, defeated Sheshai, Ahiman and Talmai, but these three were identified in the Joshua 15 version as the "children of Anak," who were identified in Joshua 14:15 as "Anakim." Why is that a problem? That's simple to answer for those whose biblical knowledge goes beyond the superficial level of Turkel's: the book of Joshua claims that the Anakim were destroyed in Canaan during the lifetime of Joshua, except for some who remained in Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod.

Joshua 11:21 And at that time came Joshua, and cut off the Anakims from the mountains, from Hebron, from Debir, from Anab, and from all the mountains of Judah, and from all the mountains of Israel: Joshua destroyed them utterly with their cities. ²² There was none of the Anakims left in the land of the children of Israel: only in Gaza, in Gath, and in Ashdod, there remained.

So the book of Joshua claimed that, within the lifetime of Joshua, the "Anakims" were utterly destroyed from Hebron and Debir and everywhere else in the land of the children of Israel, except for the three towns cited, but then along comes the book of Judges, after Joshua was dead, to claim that "the men of Judah," under the leadership of Caleb, defeated "Anakims" in the city of Hebron.

No contradictions in the Bible? Well, of course not; I think everyone can see that.

This tale about Caleb's gift to his daughter is just another example of how the hodgepodge way in which the Bible was put together resulted in twice-told tales or doublets getting into the text. I gave some examples above of how the book of Judges repeated stories that were told in the book of Joshua, but there is one other that should be mentioned. Joshua 11:1-15 and 12:19 told of Joshua's utter destruction, by burning, of Hazor and the killing of the entire population and its king Jabin, but Judges 4 claims that because the Israelites "did that which was evil in the sight of Yahweh," he "sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan," whom Joshua "smote with the sword" and who "reigned in Hazor," the city that Joshua had burned and whose inhabitants Joshua had "utterly destroyed" and left none alive to breathe (Josh. 11:10-11), yet somehow, as this tale was spun in Judges, Jabin was alive and kicking until Yahweh raised up the prophetess Deborah to defeat Jabin's army and eventually "destroy Jabin king of Canaan" (Judges 4:14). Desperate to defend biblical inerrancy, some fundamentalists have quibbled that "Jabin" was just a Canaanite title for king like pharaoh in Egypt. However, this would mean that each time "Jabin king of Canaan" was used in Judges 4, it was actually saying "king king of Canaan."

This, friends, is a forensical literary analysis the likes of which you will not find in Turkel's articles, because he (1) finds it much easier to assert and then seal it with some derogatory comment about his opposition, or (2) quote a book or article that agrees with his position and impugn the integrity of those who question the position of his source, and (3) probably lacks both the ability and the knowledge of biblical content to tie related texts together as I did above. That analysis, however, added to what I had already said on this issue here in "The Paper Shortage" reduces Turkel's "dischronologized-narrative," "flash-forward" quibbles to just more rubble of biblical inerrantists who will resort to anything to try to save an emotionally important belief.

At this point, Turkel's sound-bite "replies" resumed. Notice that he said nothing at all to fulfill his promise to give us "more" later about the twice-told tale of Caleb's gift to his daughter, which, according to the Bible, happened both before and after Joshua died.

(But back to the main issue: X wastes several lines asking again why lack of paper didn't stop this repetition, and the answer is the same: Joshua and Judges are and were not of the same nature and purpose as the Gospels.) No kidding? The "nature and purpose" of fictionalized history of ancient Israel--and I can give Turkel plenty of "sources" with Ph.D. degrees who have this view of Joshua and Judges--were not the same as the "nature and purpose" of the "biographies" of a person who likely never existed? Who would have thunk it? This is about the billionth time that Turkel has tried to dismiss extensive repetition in the Old Testament by chanting his mantra of "different purposes," but has anyone seen any attempt by him to explain how a "different purpose" would have enabled Isaiah or Jeremiah or other Old Testament writers to waste space repeating what had already been reported by others, but somehow the purpose of the gospel writers--which was to report the life of "God's" savior to mankind--just wouldn't allow them to include information that had been shown to make pagan Romans declare that Jesus was surely the son of God. So, Turkey--uh--Turkel, give us a break and explain to us just why the "different purpose" of writers like Isaiah and Jeremiah allowed them to waste expensive and scarce scroll space repeating almost verbatim what others had reported, but the purpose of gospel writers, which allowed them to repeat some events in the life of Jesus, many of which were comparatively trivial, somehow didn't allow them to repeat significant events on the day of crucifixion that had caused the Roman soldiers to declare their belief that Jesus was surely the son of God. No, need to wonder why he can't give any explanation for this, except to chime, "Different purpose," because he has no reasonable explanation to give. He no doubt saw in a book where some author tried to gloss over ambiguous and confusing passages in the Bible by suggesting that some writers couldn't afford enough scroll space to explain themselves better, and he seized this as if the god he believes in had thundered it forth from the heavens. Now that the silliness of it has been exposed, he can do nothing but tread desperately to try to keep his head above water. (Is this so hard?) Well, it must be hard to give a sensible explanation of why "different purposes" allowed some biblical writers to repeat, sometimes at great length, that which had been already been reported in Yahweh's "inspired" library but wouldn't allow others to include undeniably important details in their scrolls, because Turkel certainly hasn't given us any such explanation yet. (It gets even worse with this example:) If it were as bad as Turkel claims here, I wonder why, as we will see, he deleted so much of what I said. I would think he would want to expose my ignorance as completely as possible to his readers. I retain everything he says, because I want readers to see just how silly and moronic his "replies" are.

Speaking of "twice-told tales," I could fill several pages with examples of the same tales that were told twice in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. (X provides several examples of Chronicles parallels,) Which Turkel, in typical fashion deleted. I will reinsert them below without comment, because, as anyone can see, they are self-explanatory and clearly demonstrate what I have repeatedly said: The cost and scarcity of scroll materials in the biblical era did not prevent some writers from repeating at times lengthy material that had already been reported by others. Readers can find here the original section containing these examples that Turkel deleted. Notice that the full contexts of my first two examples were quoted, so Turkel's "decontexual" charge further along is just another of his quibbles that he resorts to when he can't reply to an opponent.

Speaking of "twice-told tales," I could fill several pages with examples of the same tales that were told twice in the books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. To illustrate Yahweh's "inspired" repetitions in a time when scroll materials were scarce and expensive, I will quote just a few examples. The two accounts of Rehoboam's refusal to lighten the tax burden that had been imposed by Solomon are practically identical.

1 Kings 12:1 And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had gone to Shechem to make him king. ² So it happened, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard it (he was still in Egypt, for he had fled from the presence of King Solomon and had been dwelling in Egypt), ³ that they sent and called him. Then Jeroboam and the whole assembly of Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, ⁴ "Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten then burdensome service of your father, and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you. ⁵ So he said to them, "Depart for three days, then come back to me." And the people departed. ⁶ Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who stood before his father Solomon while he still lived, and he said, "How do you advise me to answer these people?" ⁷ And they spoke to him, saying, "If you will be a servant to these people today, and serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be your servants forever." ⁸ But he rejected the advice which the elders had given him, and consulted the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him. ⁹ And he said to them, "What advice do you give? How should we answer this people who have spoken to me, saying, 'Lighten the yoke which your father put on us'?" ¹⁰ Then the young men who had grown up with him spoke to him, saying, "Thus you should speak to this people who have spoken to you, saying, 'Your father made our yoke heavy, but you make it lighter on us'--thus you shall say to them: 'My little finger shall be thicker than my father's waist! ¹¹ And now, whereas my father put a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!'"

¹² So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam the third day, as the king had directed, saying, "Come back to me the third day." ¹³ Then the king answered the people roughly, and rejected the advice which the elders had given him; ¹⁴ and he spoke to them according to the advice of the young men, saying, "My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!" ¹⁵ So the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from Yahweh, that He might fulfill His word, which Yahweh had spoken by Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

¹⁶ Now when all Israel saw that the king did not listen to them, the people answered the king, saying:"What share have we in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel! Now, see to your own house, O David!" So Israel departed to their tents. ¹⁷ But Rehoboam reigned over the children of Israel who dwelt in the cities of Judah.

¹⁸ Then King Rehoboam sent Adoram, who was in charge of the revenue; but all Israel stoned him with stones, and he died. Therefore King Rehoboam mounted his chariot in haste to flee to Jerusalem. ¹⁹ So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day.

2 Chronicles 10:1 And Rehoboam went to Shechem, for all Israel had gone to Shechem to make him king. ² So it happened, when Jeroboam the son of Nebat heard it (he was in Egypt, where he had fled from the presence of King Solomon), that Jeroboam returned from Egypt. ³ Then they sent for him and called him. And Jeroboam and all Israel came and spoke to Rehoboam, saying, ⁴ "Your father made our yoke heavy; now therefore, lighten the burdensome service of your father and his heavy yoke which he put on us, and we will serve you." ⁵ So he said to them, "Come back to me after three days." And the people departed. ⁶ Then King Rehoboam consulted the elders who stood before his father Solomon while he still lived, saying, "How do you advise me to answer these people?" ⁷ And they spoke to him, saying, "If you are kind to these people, and please them, and speak good words to them, they will be your servants forever." ⁸ But he rejected the advice which the elders had given him, and consulted the young men who had grown up with him, who stood before him. ⁹ And he said to them, "What advice do you give? How should we answer this people who have spoken to me, saying, 'Lighten the yoke which your father put on us'?" ¹⁰ Then the young men who had grown up with him spoke to him, saying, "Thus you should speak to the people who have spoken to you, saying, 'Your father made our yoke heavy, but you make it lighter on us'--thus you shall say to them: 'My little finger shall be thicker than my father's waist! ¹¹ And now, whereas my father put a heavy yoke on you, I will add to your yoke; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!'"

¹² So Jeroboam and all the people came to Rehoboam on the third day, as the king had directed, saying, "Come back to me the third day." ¹³ Then the king answered them roughly. King Rehoboam rejected the advice of the elders, ¹⁴ and he spoke to them according to the advice of the young men, saying, "My father made your yoke heavy, but I will add to it; my father chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scourges!" ¹⁵ So the king did not listen to the people; for the turn of events was from God, that the LORD might fulfill His word, which He had spoken by the hand of Ahijah the Shilonite to Jeroboam the son of Nebat.

¹⁶ Now when all Israel saw that the king did not listen to them, the people answered the king, saying: "What share have we in David? We have no inheritance in the son of Jesse. Every man to your tents, O Israel! Now see to your own house, O David!" So all Israel departed to their tents. ¹⁷ But Rehoboam reigned over the children of Israel who dwelt in the cities of Judah.

¹⁸ Then King Rehoboam sent Hadoram, who was in charge of revenue; but the children of Israel stoned him with stones, and he died. Therefore King Rehoboam mounted his chariot in haste to flee to Jerusalem. ¹⁹ So Israel has been in rebellion against the house of David to this day.

The variations in these two accounts are so minimal that careful scrutiny is required to spot them. The account in 1 Kings 11, for example, says that when Rehoboam went to Shechem to be crowned Solomon's successor, "they [opponents of Rehoboam] sent [to Egypt] and called him [Jeroboam]," whereas the other account says that "Jeroboam returned from Egypt." Except for a couple of minor variations like this, the two accounts are identical, and they were "inspired" by Yahweh in a time when scroll materials were scarce and expensive. Yahweh could apparently "inspire" his chosen writers to tell a story like this twice, but for some reason, he couldn't guide "John" to use just an extra inch or so of writing space to tell his readers that Jesus carried the cross until he collapsed and then Simon of Cyrene carried it on to Golgotha. This is the kind of silliness that inerrantists must resort to in order to "explain" obvious discrepancies in the Bible, because such a quibble doesn't explain why "Matthew," "Mark," and "Luke" could provide this detail in a time of scarce and expensive scroll materials, but "John" couldn't. If scroll material was too scarce and expensive for "John" to record this detail, why wouldn't it have been too expensive for the others to record it?

I will truncate my next examples, but if readers will check the biblical texts, they will see that the rest of these stories, omitted by the ellipses [...] at the end of the texts, is almost identical in both versions of the stories. Even though there are at times slight variations, both accounts tell the same stories.

1 Samuel 31:1 Now the Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. ² Then the Philistines followed hard after Saul and his sons. And the Philistines killed Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua, Saul's sons. ³ The battle became fierce against Saul. The archers hit him, and he was severely wounded by the archers. Then Saul said to his armorbearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me." ⁴ But his armorbearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it. ⁵ And when his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword, and died with him. ⁶ So Saul, his three sons, his armorbearer, and all his men died together that same day....

1 Chronicles 10:1 1Now the Philistines fought against Israel; and the men of Israel fled from before the Philistines, and fell slain on Mount Gilboa. ² Then the Philistines followed hard after Saul and his sons. And the Philistines killed Jonathan, Abinadab, and Malchishua, Saul's sons. ³ The battle became fierce against Saul. The archers hit him, and he was wounded by the archers. ⁴ Then Saul said to his armorbearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and abuse me." But his armorbearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it. ⁵ And when his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword and died. ⁶ So Saul and his three sons died, and all his house died together....

The twice-told tale of Manasseh's evil reign.

2 Kings 21:1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Hephzibah. ² And he did evil in the sight of Yahweh, according to the abominations of the nations whom Yahweh had cast out before the children of Israel. ³ For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had destroyed; he raised up altars for Baal, and made a wooden image, as Ahab king of Israel had done; and he worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. ⁴ He also built altars in the house of Yahweh, of which Yahweh had said, "In Jerusalem I will put My name." ⁵ And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of Yahweh. ⁶ Also he made his son pass through the fire, practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft, and consulted spiritists and mediums....

2 Chronicles 33:1 Manasseh was twelve years old when he became king, and he reigned fifty-five years in Jerusalem. ² But he did evil in the sight of Yahweh, according to the abominations of the nations whom Yahweh had cast out before the children of Israel. ³ For he rebuilt the high places which Hezekiah his father had broken down; he raised up altars for the Baals, and made wooden images; and he worshiped all the host of heaven and served them. ⁴ He also built altars in the house of Yahweh, of which Yahweh had said, "In Jerusalem shall My name be forever." ⁵ And he built altars for all the host of heaven in the two courts of the house of Yahweh. ⁶ Also he caused his sons to pass through the fire in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom; he practiced soothsaying, used witchcraft and sorcery, and consulted mediums and spiritists....

In order to accept Turkel's "paper-shortage" theory, one would have to believe that Yahweh somehow deemed it necessary in a time of scarce and expensive scroll materials to inspire writers to tell the same stories twice, with practically no variations, but for some reason he decided not to provide enough space to his writers chosen to tell the story of his son's crucifixion for them to record details in a manner that would have eliminated disputes about disharmony in the accounts.

Although I truncated these examples after giving the full, complete contexts of the first two, readers will find, as I noted above, that "the rest of these stories, omitted by the ellipses [...] at the end of the texts, is almost identical in both versions of the stories." Turkel's comment that follows, then, is totally without merit. (but this one is his worst and most decontexualized.) My worst and "most decontextualized"? I assume everyone noticed that Turkel made no attempt at all to show that I had cited anything out of context. He simply asserted that I did. Exactly how did I "decontextualize" 1 Kings 12:1-19 and 2 Chronicles 10:1-19? I quoted both texts in their entireties, so just where did the "decontextualization" occur? In the other examples, I told readers to check where the ellipses truncated the passages so that they would see that all examples were of almost verbatim repetitions. Just how did this constitute "decontextualizing"? Turkel didn't say, of course; he just asserted it. He thinks that he can scream, "Decontextualization" or "Dischronologized narrative," and that will satisfactorily explain just about any problem passage identified in the Bible. (My answer, already given: Ezra and Nehemiah would have been able to call on the Persian royal treasury for help, which made Chronicles (Ezra's work) an affordable luxury.) And I showed here that this dog won't hunt. Among other rebuttals of this quibble, I pointed out that Turkel had given no textual evidence to support his claim that Ezra could dip into the Persian royal treasury to finance his scribal activities, and I analyzed possible indications in Ezra's works to show that they do not give any indication at all that the Persian king gave him support to write his scrolls. I won't quote that section, because the link above will take readers directly to it. I have already swatted a gnat in Ocoee, Florida, with a sledgehammer, so there is no need to impose further on the patience of readers. (Kings of Judah had the royal treasury at hand for works like Psalms; righteous kings would offer such support to prophets like Isaiah.) I replied here in detail to this assertion, which, as I pointed out in the section linked to, Turkel gave no support for. I analyzed at length Isaiah's references to kings of his time to show that he gave no indication at all that his scribal work was supported by any of these kings, and in a lengthy section that followed this, I showed that Jeremiah, even though he had repeated at the end of his book the final chapter of 2 Kings, had vehemently denounced the kings of his time and had even been cast into prison by Hezekiah for his predictions that the Babylonians would succeed in their siege against Jerusalem. As I asked then, how likely is it that the kings of that time would have given financial support to Jeremiah? I even showed that king Jehoiakim had destroyed one of Jeremiah's scrolls (Jer. 36:20-24) and that Jeremiah had prophesied that Jehoiakim's body would be buried like a donkey, drawn and cast out beyond the gates of Jerusalem (Jer. 22:18-19). How likely is it that this king would have given financial help to a prophet who opposed him like this? If any of Turkel's admirers are reading this, they should take note and realize their need to take with a grain of salt anything that he says, because he will say anything to try to get out of whatever predicament he finds himself in. (One copy of Isaiah would be no burden under such circumstances.) I have repeatedly dumped this admission right back into Turkel's lap here and here and here and here and here and in other places that I won't bother to link to. (Why use more overkill than I already have?) In these sections linked to, I showed that Turkel had cut his own throat by admitting that making one copy would have been no burden on Isaiah or whoever, because if Isaiah could have borne the expense of making one copy, then whatever scribe decided to make one copy of his "original" would have experienced "no burden" either, and then whoever decided to copy the copy could have done so without going into bankruptcy, and so on. (In contrast the NT writers, though they may have had the backing of members of the educated Roman class, still did not have deep pockets to pull from -- not to the level of the king of Persia.) Turkel here is just recycling unsupported assertions first made in "Paper Pushers," which I replied to in "The Paper Trail Resumes - Part One", and this "deep-pockets" quibble was replied to in detail in this section of that article, so there is no need to rehash my reply here. (I'll also add that Chronicles was written at a sensitive time in Jewish history when a new "manifesto" and fresh look at Jewish history was needed to serve as a rallying point for the exilic returns.) Yeah, right. The chronicler copied almost verbatim lengthy sections of the books of Samuel and Kings. The account of the deaths of Saul and his sons (1 Chron. 10) was copied from 1 Samuel 31, and the "fresh look" that he gave to this story was to justify Yahweh's alleged involvement in it by saying that it had happened because of "trespasses" that he had committed and also because of his seeking counsel from a medium (vs:13-14). In this section of "The Paper Trail Resumes - Part One," I quoted several other examples of verbatim or almost verbatim repetitions that the chronicler took from the books of Samuel and Kings, so I don't need to repeat them here. I will add, however, that the "fresh look" that the chronicler took of Jewish history was to whitewash much of it. In an apparent attempt to idealize David, he eliminated the tales of David's life as a guerilla marauder (1 Sam. 27), when he raided towns in the land of Gath, which had given him refuge from Saul, and killed everyone in the towns so that there would be no witnesses to report his activities to the king of his host country, and the chronicler left out other details that were inconsistent with his attempt to idealize David, such as his adulterous affair with Bathsheba and his subsequent arrangement to have her husband killed (2 Sam. 11). Bathsheba, in fact, wasn't even mentioned by name in the Chronicles. In 1 Chronicles 3:5, she was called Bathshua when Nathan and Solomon were listed among David's sons. The chronicler also whitewashed the life of Solomon by leaving out references to Solomon's resort to idolatry later in his life (1 Kings 11:1-11). Hence, one could say that if the books of Samuel and Kings are historically accurate, then the "fresh look" that the chronicler took of Jewish history was actually a dishonest look. (In any event there is no comparison to the Gospel situation,) Here he is asserting again that some perceived "difference" in Old Testament books and the "gospel situation" enabled the former to engage in frequent repetitions of previously reported information but would not allow the gospel writers to devote space in their scrolls to undeniably important information. This is an assertion that I have already replied to and rereplied to, so there is no need to waste further space on it here. (and we delete all of X's further comparisons to Chronicles, which are all answered the same way,) That deleted section was reinserted above, so readers can scroll up to read it and see why Turkel wanted to delete it. As for his claim that they "are all answered the same way," his "answers" are also rebutted the same way, and until he takes the time--which he will never do--to address my rebuttals point by point, those rebuttals will remain unimpeached. Turkel thinks that he has "answered" an opponent when he pulls out of thin air some asinine excuse for Old Testament repetitions--such as claims of "royal support," where no proof of such support exists--and "different purposes" that wouldn't permit the gospel writers to include important information. I am sure that rational readers will see the flimsiness of this style of "apologetics." It will work with Turkel's choir members, but it will make no impact on critical readers. (and are nothing but his attempt to make his lame argument look more substantive.) My argument isn't "lame" just because Turkel claims that it is. He must show that it is, and he hasn't even begun to do that yet. As for lame arguments, however, how about his constant unsupported claims that Old Testament writers could devote scroll space to repetitions, because they had the financial backing of kings, but gospel writers couldn't include even important information in their scrolls, because they didn't have "deep pockets." I have urged Turkel to show us just how he knows how much cost the gospel writers incurred in writing on their scrolls of unknown length, so I will repeat that challenge to him here. Don't expect to see him accept it and give us answers to questions like the ones that I will copy below.

1. What was the length of the scroll on which "John" wrote the fourth gospel?

2. How much did this scroll cost "John"?

3. Did "John" use every inch of this scroll?

4. Did he have any space at all left over when he wrote the final verse of this gospel?

5. If he did have space left at the end, how long was that space? Two inches? One inch? A half inch? How much?

6. If "John" had, say, a half inch left at the end, would that have been enough space for him to squeeze in, "When Jesus died, a great earthquake shook open the tombs of many saints, who went into the city, after his resurrection, and appeared to many, and the centurion seeing the earthquake and what took place said, 'Surely, this was the son of God'"?

7. If "John's" scroll didn't even have an extra half inch to squeeze this information in, how much extra would it have cost him to have bought a scroll a half inch longer or to buy a half inch of scroll material to tack onto the end?

Don't hold your breath until Turkel answers these questions.

In a fifth part, I will continue my point-by-point replies to Turkel's so-called "replies" to my original article.

---

within All text Title Keywords Descriptions File name   using All words Any words Exact phrase