Till(3):
Well, Turkel has "replied"
to my second-round Abiathar
rebuttals, and in so doing, he did
exactly as I predicted. He skipped the section where I analyzed
epi as it had been used (1) in the sense of "before"
or "in the presence of" and (2) in the sense of
"under=during the administration." The
meaning of epi is an important factor in this debate and can
in no way be passed off as just "fluff" or "superfluous
commentary," because Turkel's solution to the Abiathar
problem in Mark 2:26 depends on his claim that epi could mean
"in the time of" in the sense of any time during the life
of the person used as a point of reference. That person in this
case was Abiathar.
I contend that my analyses of various passages show that, without a doubt, epi was used to convey the sense of "in the presence of" and "under=during the administration of," but twice now Turkel has ignored these arguments and has presented no counterexamples to show that epi was undeniably used to mean "any time during the life of." Now I could take Turkel's latest and go through it point by point, but if I did so, he would find several excuses to go off on tangents (as he has done throughout our debates) and ignore my arguments again. Hence, my strategy this time is going to be to present again my arguments about the meaning of epi and nothing else, so that if he ignores these arguments for a third time, there will be no doubt that he is evading that which he cannot answer.
Accordingly, I am restating my epi arguments below and nothing else. After his answers to the argument, if he should address them, he can present to me anything that he thinks that I have not answered in this debate, and I will reply to it and present another argument that I think he hasn't answered. This will restrict the debate to just one point at a time so that if either of us refuses to answer the other's arguments, it will be embarrassingly obvious to the readers.
Here are my epi arguments again for the third time.
Till(1) and (2):
In Greek, the text does
not say that David went into the house of God "in the time of
Abiathar the high priest." It says that he entered into
the house of God "[epi] Abiathar the high priest."
The Greek word for "time" is not in the text, and
epi was a Greek preposition that had many uses, just as some
English prepositions have many uses. A comparative examination of the
way epi was used in the New Testament will show
convincing evidence that its use in Mark 2:26 was intended to
convey the sense of to or into or before
[in the sense of "in the presence of"] or "under=during
the administration of." Here are some examples of how epi
was used in other passages.
Matthew 10:17-18 Beware of them, for they will hand you over to councils and flog you in their synagogues; and you will be dragged before [epi] governors and kings because of me, as a testimony to them and the Gentiles.
Matthew 28:14 "If this report gets to [epi] the governor, we will satisfy him and keep you out of trouble."
Mark 13:9 "You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before [epi] governors and kings as witnesses to them."
Acts 23:30 "When I was informed that there would be a plot against the man [the apostle Paul], I sent him to you at once, ordering his accusers also to state before [epi] you what they have against him."
Acts 24:20-21 Or let these men here tell what crime they had found when I [Paul] stood before [epi] the council....
Acts 25:10 Paul answered: "I am now standing before [epi] Caesar's court, where I ought to be tried."
Acts 25:26 But I have nothing definite to write to our sovereign about him [Paul]. Therefore I have brought him before all of you, and especially before [epi] you, King Agrippa, so that, after we have examined him, I may have something to write....
1 Corinthians 6:1 When any of you has a grievance against another, do you dare to take it to court before [epi] the unrighteous, instead of taking it before [epi] the saints?
1 Corinthians 6:5-6 Can it be that there is no one among you wise enough to decide between one believer and another, but a believer goes to court against a believer--and before [epi] unbelievers at that?
2 Corinthians 7:14 For if I have been somewhat boastful about you to him, I was not disgraced; but just as everything we said to you was true, so our boasting to [epi] Titus has proved true as well.
1 Timothy 6:13 In the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who in his testimony before [epi] Pontius Pilate made the good confession....
Till(3):
In response to Turkel's
claim that epi when used with the genitive meant "in the
time of," I posted the following counterargument.
Till(1) and (2):
It can convey this but
doesn't necessarily have to. Arndt & Gingrich said that epi
could be used with the genitive, dative, or accusative and "with
the genitive" conveyed "place," "on, upon,
answering the question ‘where?'" They cited several
examples (Matt. 6:10; Mark 6:47; Matt. 24:30; Mark 14:51;
etc.),
none of which conveyed the sense of "time."
The second definition given by Arndt & Gingrich stated that epi could mean "in the time of" in the sense of "under=during the rule or administration of." They again cited several examples, most of which are not at all helpful to Turkel's position****
Luke 4:27 There were also many lepers in Israel in the time of [epi] the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed except Naaman the Syrian.
The story of the curing of Naaman's leprosy is recorded in 2 Kings 5, and Elisha was the prophet to whom Naaman went and through whom the alleged cure was effected. Obviously, then, Jesus didn't intend to say that Naaman was cured of leprosy only at sometime during Elisha's life span, perhaps when he was a child or a young man who had not yet been chosen to succeed Elijah, but rather meant to say that the curing of Naaman happened during the active prophetic ministry of the prophet Elisha. By the way, epi was used with the genitive form of Elisha's name [Elissiou] in this passage.
Acts 11:27 At that
time
prophets came down from Jerusalem to Antioch.
28
One of them named Agabus stood up and predicted by the Spirit that
there would be a severe famine over all the world; and this took
place during the reign [epi] of Claudius.
Famine did occur in various parts of the empire during the reign of Claudius, not at some time when Claudius was alive, before he had become emperor, but during the actual time of his reign. In this verse, epi was also used with the genitive form of Claudius's name [Klaudiou].
Luke 3:1 In the
fifteenth
year of the reign of Emperor Tiberius, when Pontius Pilate was
governor of Judea, and Herod was ruler of Galilee, and his brother
Philip ruler of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias
ruler of Abilene,
2 during [epi] the
high priesthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John
son of Zechariah in the wilderness.
Biblical inerrantists love to cite this passage as an example of the remarkable accuracy of Luke's historical records. Some New Testament records indicate that Annas was high priest before and after the trial of Jesus (Acts 4:6), but others indicate that Caiphas was the high priest at this time (John 18:12-13). By claiming this as an inconsistency, some skeptics have unwittingly given biblicists reason to scoff at skeptical criticism of the Bible, because the solution to the problem is found in the fact that, depending on perspective, both Annas and Caiphas were high priest at the same time. Annas was installed as high priest in AD 6 but deposed in AD 15 by Gratus, the procurator of Judea. Caiphas, the son-in-law of Annas, was then appointed high priest. Jews probably considered Annas their official high priest, which would explain why the officers of the Jews took Jesus to Annas first after he was arrested and then to Caiphas (John 18:12-13, 24), but Judea was under Roman authority at this time, so Caiphas was the high priest as far as the Romans were concerned.
Aware of this, informed biblicists will point to Luke 3:1-2 as an example of the accuracy of details in Luke's historical narratives. He knew that both Annas and Caiphas were high priest at the same time. Luke's statement quoted above, however, does serious damage to Turkel's claim that epi simply meant "in the time of" and could refer to any time in the life of the person that epi referred to, because Luke said that the word of God came to John [the Baptist] during [epi] the high priesthood of Annas and Caiphas. In other words, as Arndt & Gingrich pointed out, the word epi used in this way meant under in the sense of "during the administration of." Hence, the word of God came to John the Baptist during the administration of Annas and Caiphas or when Annas and Caiphas both served as high priest. Obviously, it wasn't the intention of Luke to say that the word of God came to John at some time during the lifetimes of Annas and Caiphas but rather at a particular time in their lives, i. e., when they were serving as high priest.
Ironically enough, the third example that Arndt & Gingrich gave in this section of their definition of epi was none other than Mark 2:26.
So here was a lengthy rebuttal argument, which I supported by quoting and analyzing three New Testament examples. Turkel skipped over all of them, and his only comment was his complaint immediately below.
Turkel(2):
Till isn't
polite enough to say what edition of BAGD he is using, or on what
page he found this, but I dug out two editions, the 4th ed. from the
50s [286] and an edition published in 2000 (which has Danker on
board, too [363-5]). And guess what -- this material completely
fizzles his idea that epi could mean here, "before"
in a sense of "appearance before an authority figure and an
appearance in a legal situation". BAGD gives examples of those
from 1 Tim. 6:13 and about half a dozen places.
Till(3):
Here was my reply to this.
Till(2):
I was using the 1960 edition of
Arndnt & Gingrich, which discusses epi on pages
285-289.
I would think that someone who is as expert as Turkel presents
himself in Greek would have no problem using a lexicon that
alphabetically arranges the words. The material on epi
is arranged by sections classified and subclassified by I, 1, a,
alpha, beta, gamma, delta, b, alpha, beta, gamma; 2, II,
1,
a, alpha, beta, gamma, b, alpha, beta, gamma, delta,
epsilon, zeta, 2, 3; III, 1, a, alpha, beta, gamma,
delta, epsilon, zeta, b, alpha, beta, gamma, delta, epsilon,
zeta, eta, 2, a, b, 3.
The sense of on, upon, answering the question "where?" with the examples I cited (Matt. 6:10; Mark 6:47; Matt. 24:30; Mark 14:51, etc.) were discussed under I, 1, a, alpha. The beta subsection here also discussed other examples of on, upon, but I didn't cite or quote any of them,
Section I, 1, 2 (p. 286) discussed examples of epi where the meaning was in the time of, under=during the administration of. Some of the examples were Luke 4:27, Acts 11:27, and Luke 3:1, all of which I quoted but all of which Turkel skipped over along with my comments based on those quotations. As a participant in a formal debate, I am now insisting that Turkel reply to these rebuttal examples and arguments that he has now evaded twice. In this section, one of the examples that the authors cited was Mark 2:26. Hence, they were saying that in Mark 2:26 epi was used in the sense of under=during the administration of, so their opinion is that this verse was saying that David entered the house of God under the administration of Abiathar the high priest.
Section I, 1, delta (p. 286) was where epi in the sense of "before" or "in the presence" of was discussed. Turkel may claim that the edition of Arndt and Gingrich "completely fizzle[d]" my idea of what epi could have meant in Mark 2:26, but this was not my "idea." It was an "idea" supported by the lengthy analysis of epi in Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon. Even Turkel admitted that the edition he consulted cited 1 Timothy 6:13 as an example of this meaning of epi.
1 Timothy 6:13 In
the
sight of God, who gives life to everything, and of Christ Jesus, who
while testifying before [epi] Pontius Pilate made the
good confession, I charge you
14 to keep this
command without spot or blame until the appearing of our Lord Jesus
Christ....
This section also cited other examples that I quoted, which Turkel has also ignored, i.e., Acts 25:10, 2 Corinthians 7:14, Acts 23:30, Acts 24:20, etc., so perhaps Turkel would care to explain to us why Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon "completely fizzle[d]" my "idea."
I look forward to seeing Turkel ignore these examples again. It will let our readers know that he skips that which he cannot answer.
Till(3):
The only reference
that Turkel made to my citation of what Arndt and Gingrich said about
the meaning of epi was his complaint that I had not been
polite enough to state the edition of A&G that I was quoting,
after which he said that he had obtained a more recent copy of this
work and had found....
Turkel(2):
Mark 2:26 is
conspicuously missing from that batch.
Till(3):
My reply to this is
quoted below.
Till(2):
Well, as I noted above, Mark 2:26
was listed in Section I, 1, 2 (p. 286), where examples of epi
in the sense of under=during the administration of were
given. Turkel seems to be having a hard time understanding that
whether the writer of Mark meant for epi to convey the
sense of "before" or "in the presence of" or
the sense of "under=during the administration of"
doesn't really matter, because either meaning makes Turkel's
spin on the verse.... well, completely fizzle.
Till(3):
So these are crucial
arguments that Turkel hasn't even touched in this debate, so I
am doing what I said below in my second-round reply.
In a debate, either party has the right to ask his opponent to respond to arguments or rebuttals that have been evaded. Turkel has not responded to my argument, based on the examples quoted above, that the word epi conveyed the sense of "before" or "in the presence of," so I am formally requesting that he reply to these examples. If he fails to do so, I will assume that he cannot reply to them.
To the set of examples referred to in this quotation, I have also presented another set to show that epi could convey the sense of "under=during the administration of." On the other hand, we have seen exactly no examples from Turkel where epi was undeniably used to convey the sense of "at any time during the life of" whoever was referred to.
I'm sending
these
arguments back to Turkel for a third time. Comparatively
speaking, these arguments are short, so there should be no reason for
him to skip them this time. With his answers, if he sends any,
he can identify an argument or rebuttal that he thinks I have evaded,
and I will answer it immediately, provided that I have returned from
a trip to Colorado that I will be making soon. If I am still on
the road when he posts it, I will answer it upon my return. I
think the records of our exchanges will show that I do not skip
Turkel's arguments. However, if he thinks I have answered
something inadequately, he can identify it.
